Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Anglesey County Council (Water &c.) Bill. (By Order.)

Chesterfield and Bolsover Water Bill. (By Order.)

Kingston upon Hull Corporation (Air Transport) Bill. (By Order.)

Kingston upon Hull Corporation (Development &c.) Bill. (By Order.)

Middlesex County Council Bill. (By Order.)

Second Reading deferred till the first Sitting Day after 20th February.

PRIVATE BILLS

(STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH):

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table, Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Connah's Quay Gas Bill.

Bill committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Down-graded Officers (Pay)

Major Conant: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of officers who are down-graded after having served in a higher rank over a long period, he will arrange, when military employment in their old rank cannot be provided, to supplement their pay by the amount needed to avoid financial loss.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Griģģ): When an officer has served for a sufficient time in any rank he cannot drop more than one step in rank and this to a large extent safeguards him against an excessive drop in pay. It would not be justifiable to give an officer the pay of a higher rank when he is employed in a lower rank.

Major Conant: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he appreciates the very real hardship that results to an officer who has held his rank for a long period of time and then, on account of an alteration of war establishment, goes to a lower rank and suffers financial loss?

Sir J. Griģģ: It is not so much because of alteration of war establishment as of transfers between different arms of the Service. I think I know the case which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind.

Miss Rathbone: In view of the great discomfort caused to officers by misunderstanding among their friends, who think that they have done something inefficient or disgraceful when they lose rank, could not some form of honorary title be devised which would clearly indicate that they had not been down-graded for any reason within their own control?

Sir J. Griģģ: I will consider that suggestion, but not with any very great degree of hope.

Army Newspapers (Official Guidance)

Major Nield: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent his Department has found it necessary to guide or advise the editors or staffs of Army newspapers, particularly Eighth Army "News" and "Crusader," and will he assure the House that it is still Government policy to allow the utmost freedom to those responsible for the production of such publications.

Sir J. Griģģ: Little editorial guidance or advice has so far been necessary. Various inquiries from editors have been answered and much information exchanged with them about their supplies of home news and other material. The answer to the last part of the Question is "Yes, Sir," so long as this is compatible with the status of an official Army newspaper.

Central Mediterranean Force (Marriages)

Major Nield: asked the Secretary of State for War if, following representations which have been made to him, arrangements have yet been made to enable members of the Forces to marry British subjects within the area covered by the Central Mediterranean Force.

Sir J. Griģģ: The Commander of the Force reported about a month ago that he was going to issue the necessary instructions. I have not heard whether he has yet actually done so.

A.T.S. (Coloured Soldiers, Order)

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for War who is responsible for a recent issue of an order to the A.T.S. forbidding its members to speak with coloured American soldiers except in the presence of a white though no such restriction is imposed in the case of white American soldiers; and will be undertake

the removal of this official recognition of the colour bar.

Sir J. Griģģ: I am not aware that any such order has been issued.

Mr. Leach: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of this order, will he go further into the matter?

Sir J. Griģģ: Yes, and I shall be very grateful if the hon. Member will tell me how he got hold of it, too.

Home Guard

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on Sunday, 30th January, officers and men of a certain company of the Home Guard were obliged, at a place of which he has been informed, to enter a gas chamber filled with D.M. gas, and there to take off their masks for two minutes, with the result that the whole company was affected by vomiting, retching and sickness; what purpose is served by practices of this kind; and whether he will cause them to cease.

Sir J. Griģģ: I understand that the training in question was of a form which is common to the whole Army and was conducted in strict accordance with the Regulations on the subject. It would be undesirable to omit this training, the purpose of which is to enable troops to recognise this type of gas and to give them confidence in the anti-gas equipment with which they are issued. I understand that only one man out of 63 complained of ill effects.

Mr. Brown: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, would be consider shooting British soldiers in order to teach them that bullets are lethal?

Surgical Operations (Consent)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, except in the case of battle injuries requiring immediate treatment, the civilian practice of obtaining written consent to an operation is followed before a soldier undergoes an operation.

Sir J. Griģģ: The oral consent of the soldier is always obtained before an operation is performed on him unless he is too ill to give or refuse consent. In the case of soldiers under 18, the consent of the parent or guardians is obtained in addition, if this is possible.

Mr. Douglas: Is it not desirable that a written consent should be obtained?

Sir J. Griģģ: I do not think that it is practicable, and in any case, though I should hesitate to differ from the hon. Member upon a question of fact, I think that his idea that the practice of obtaining written consent is universal in civil life, is not correct.

R.E.M.E. (Transfers)

Sir Robert Young: asked the Secretary of Slate for War whether he is aware that certain people, including married women, in connection with R.E.M.E. were transferred from one workplace to another; that some classes of workpeople are compensated for the extra expense incurred while others only get compensation for one week of the extra expense; and will he explain the reason for this difference in treatment when all undergo the same inconvenience.

Sir J. Griģģ: When a transfer of this kind has to take place, the allowances provided to meet the necessary extra expense of the move are paid indefinitely to married men, or single men with equivalent domestic responsibilities, if they do not move their families or dependants to the new station. It is considered that a single man can find lodgings at his new station at no greater expense than at the old one and the allowance is normally paid in such circumstances for one week only. As a rule a married woman is in the same position in this respect as a single man and is treated accordingly, but the case of a married woman who takes accommodation for herself at her new station and has commitments at her old station is dealt with on the lines of the rules for married men.

Sir R. Younģ:: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration that it is not easy, in these days, to transfer from one lodgings to another within a week, especially in an area that is fully occupied?

Sir J. Griģģ: I should be very glad if my hon. Friend would give me particulars of the case in question, in order that I may look into the matter on the basis of a concrete case and not a generalised case.

A.B.C.A. Maps (Russian Frontiers)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that

the map of the Russian battlefield, issued by the A.B.C.A. (Map Review No. 27) gives no indication of the lines which the U.S.S.R. regards as her frontiers, showing only the pre-1938 line; and whether he will direct the Bureau to show impartiality between our Ally and those who are hostile to her by adding her frontier to such maps.

Sir J. Griģģ: As a rule A.B.C.A. prints only pre-war frontiers in its Map Review and it draws attention to this fact. In Map Review No. 31 issued in January a special explanatory map was published showing the pre-war Polish frontier, the frontier agreed between the Germans and the Soviet Union in September, 1939, and the Curzon Line.

Mr. Pritt: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that up-to-date information, I wonder if he would bring the House of Commons Library more up to dale than Map Review No. 27?

Sir J. Griģģ: I am sorry. I did not know we were behindhand. I will send the later one.

Sunday Entertainments

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will cause a survey to be made of those provincial towns and cities which do not permit any public entertainment on Sundays and where large numbers of British and Allied troops are centred and, wherever necessary, will he utilise his requisitioning powers to ensure that theatre performances and cinema shows on Sundays are available exclusively for men and women of the Fighting Services.

Sir J. Griģģ: While sympathising with my hon. Friend's intention I regret that this use of requisitioning powers would be inappropriate.

Mr. Walkden: Has not such an experiment been tried for the past 18 months in Belfast, with success; has not the Lord's Day Observance Society said, quite definitely, that they will not oppose or discourage such a scheme; and will the right hon. Gentleman extend the Belfast experiment to Great Britain?

Sir J. Griģģ: I do not personally think that the extension of the Belfast experiment would be justifiable, in face of the view taken by this House in a contrary sense.

Mr. Walkden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are places where permission has been given for shows on Sunday, but where owing to difficulties of one kind or another, no entertainment is available for the troops? Will he not do something in the matter?

Sir J. Griģģ: This is a matter in which the House has the remedy in its own hands.

Oral Answers to Questions — RECAPTURED BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (PUNISHMENT)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any intimation from the Protecting Power of any charges preferred by the German Government or of any sentences awarded by German tribunals in respect of British prisoners of war who have escaped and been recaptured.

Sir J. Griģģ: The Geneva Convention lays down that prisoners who try to escape shall be liable only to summary punishments, limited to 30 days' imprisonment, in respect of an attempt to escape. The detaining Power is not required to notify the protecting Power of such punishments. In the course of their attempt to escape prisoners may, however, commit offences against the laws of the detaining Power which render them liable to trial by a military court. In all such cases the detaining Power is required to notify the protecting Power. The German Government have in fact notified the protecting Power of 13 such trials, three of which are pending.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (JAPANESE TREATMENT)

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the controller of the Far East section of the British Red Cross announced in October, 1943, that there was not a single authenticated case of atrocity by the Japanese against our prisoners and that treatment was considerate; if this announcement was made by the British Red Cross on information obtained by the Foreign Office; and if all the information then at the disposal of the British Red Cross warranted this announcement.

Sir J. Griģģ: Yes, Sir. I am aware that such a statement was made by the official

in question. He no doubt based it on such information as was in his possession at the time but that information was far from complete as at that time he had no means of knowing anything of the information on which was based the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 28th January.

Captain Gammans: From what source did the Red Cross get their information? If it was from the Government, had not His Majesty's Government any evidence to suggest that that statement was not true?

Sir J. Griģģ: His Majesty's Government had a good deal of evidence, but did not necessarily communicate it all to the Red Cross, on account of the source from which it arose. Incidentally, I did make representations to the Red Cross on account of this particular incident.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Would it not be better for the Red Cross to keep their mouths shut?

Sir J. Griģģ: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Bowles: Should there not be one Minister exclusively responsible for looking after the welfare of prisoners of war?

Sir J. Griģģ: That question has been dealt with in the House of Commons before.

Mr. Lipson: What reply did the right hon. Gentleman receive to the representations?

Sir J. Griģģ: The representations were unilateral.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has yet been reached in regard to the award of the 1939–1943 Star to appropriate units of the Home Guard in respect of their defence of Britain during 1940–1941.

Sir J. Griģģ: The 1939–43 Star is awarded in respect of service in operational commands overseas, but my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to raise this matter when the subject is debated.

Sir T. Moore: Pending that Debate, will my right hon. Friend remember that the Home Guard of this country in the execution of their duties have suffered many severe casualties from heavy bombers, which are a form of modern artillery?

Sir J. Griģģ: I will certainly remember that, but, as regards any action, that must await the Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Lime (Deliveries)

Sir R. W. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been called to the difficulty farmers in the North-East of Scotland are experiencing in getting delivery of their orders for lime; and what steps he proposes to take to expedite delivery.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I understand from local inquiry that while adequate supplies of shell sand and waste lime are available in the north-eastern area, there has been some delay in deliveries of ground limestone. Supplies of ground limestone are being sent in from other areas. If the hon. Member will provide me with details of any particular cases of unsatisfied demand, I will see whether I can do anything to assist. I should add that a new limestone grinding plant will shortly be erected with State aid at Dufftown, Banffshire, the output of which will, it is hoped, materially assist deliveries in the north-eastern area.

Sir R. W. Smith: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask will his Department in future see that there is not so much delay? As he asks for special cases, is he aware that in one case I know of, the delay was as much as six months, and delivery took place last week after my Question appeared on the Paper?

Mr. Johnston: There are questions of delay incurred, but every effort is being made, as the hon. Member is aware, to meet them.

Housing

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make a statement in regard to the provision of prefabricated houses for Scotland pending the conclusion of hostilities.

Mr. Johnston: The whole question of the provision of prefabricated houses is being urgently investigated by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Works and the Minister of Health, and myself. I hope to make a statement after the completion of a prototype prefabricated house for emergency use which is at present being erected for the Ministry of Works.

Sir T. Moore: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to when this statement will be made?

Mr. Johnston: I understand that a prototype house will be completed and available for inspection by April.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that he does not copy those bungaloid abominations which have been erected in England?

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the high prices being demanded for the purchase of dwelling-houses in Scotland, he will take immediate steps to put an end to this form of profiteering.

Mr. Johnston: I am making inquiries from the Keeper of the Sasines Register in which title deeds are recorded to see whether there is any evidence of such increases as would warrant legislation. I understand, however, that, as stated in my reply to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Mathers) on 2nd February, 1943, such increases as have taken place in the selling price of houses refer mainly to houses which are sold for occupation by the purchasers but I should welcome any information the hon. Member has in his possession.

Major Lloyd: If and when the right hon. Gentleman obtains the information he requires—which I gather he has not—will he take definite steps to put an end to this gross profiteering?

Mr. Johnston: What action may be taken will, of course, depend upon the information. It may be more desirable that the matter should be dealt with in the Budget.

Mr. Gallacher: Why should there be such sales of houses in the existing situation in Scotland? Does the Minister not consider it his responsibility to requisition all houses in Scotland and allocate them to the best advantage of the people?

Mr. Lipson: When the right hon. Gentleman has the information, will be consult with the Ministry of Health so that similar action may be taken in this country?

Mr. Johnston: Certainly. Any action taken by the Government in Scotland in a matter of this kind would require to be taken in consultation with other Ministers.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: If that information is given to the House, will the right hon. Gentleman, in that statement, also give the reasons for the increase?

Mr. Johnston: I cannot say what would be the reasons for the increase in every particular case.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is not the increase largely due to the high wages which are being paid and why do the Government not support high wages?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of married couples with three or more of a family who have applied, and are still waiting, for four- and five-apartment corporation houses in Glasgow.

Mr. Johnston: I am informed that the particulars desired are not meanwhile available but will be forthcoming soon in respect of houseless and overcrowded families whose applications for houses have recently been made to the Corporation and are now being classified. I will let my hon. Friend have the information as soon as I receive it.

Mr. Davidson: When my right hon. Friend does receive that information, will he publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Johnston: I think I had better wait until I get the information.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that information of this kind would be useful to all Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies?

Mr. Johnston: Steps might be taken to see that that is done.

Mr. McKinlay: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this interference with the prerogative of local authorities should not be encouraged?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of

four- and five-apartment corporation houses in Glasgow let to, and occupied by, only one person, the number occupied by only two persons, and the number of five-apartment houses occupied by only a married couple and one child, respectively.

Mr. Johnston: I regret that the particulars desired by my hon. Friend are not available. Their preparation would involve issuing a questionnaire to over 54,000 corporation tenants and I hardly feel justified in asking the corporation to do this, particularly at the present time.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the fact that there are married couples in Glasgow—thousands of them—with three or more of a family, waiting for four- or five-apartment houses, if I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that such houses, particularly non-subsidised houses, are being let to single persons with no responsibilities, will he take the necessary action?

Mr. Johnston: Action is being taken in another direction. For example, the corporation are proposing now to use part of their allocation of houses for the erection of hostel accommodation, and to use that hostel accommodation for single persons.

Mr. Davidson: May I repeat my question. If I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to instances of four- and five-apartment non-subsidised houses being let at the present time to single persons, will he take the necessary steps to stop this practice?

Mr. Johnston: I will certainly be glad of information—

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman do anything?

Mr. Johnston: Certainly—if the hon. Member will allow me to complete my answer—I will be glad of information and will take whatever steps are within my power in the matter.

Land Purchases

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of land purchases of 100 acres or more made in Scotland during the past nine months.

Mr. Johnston: The total for all Scotland is 378. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the figures by counties.

Mr. Davidson: Does that mean 378 purchases?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Davidson: Has my right hon. Friend any plan about future house-building in Scotland that will overcome the difficulty of dealing with those recent purchases of land in Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: I should like to have more adequate notice of that question, but, speaking generally, the answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a thoroughgoing tax on site values in Scotland, which will put the matter right?

Mr. Johnston: That is not within my power.

Mr. Levy: Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans for the introduction of both water and drainage in the areas where these houses are going to be built?

Following is the table:


RETURN OF LAND SALES IN SCOTLAND OF 100 ACRES OR MORE FOR THE NINE MONTHS TO 12TH FEBRUARY, 1944.


County.
Number of Purchases.


1. Aberdeen
…
46


2. Angus
…
13


3. Argyll
…
8


4. Ayr
…
23


5. Banff
…
15


6. Berwick
…
5


7. Caithness
…
9


8. Dunbarton
…
2


9. Dumfries
…
30


10. East Lothian
…
4


11. Fife
…
6


12. Inverness
…
8


13. Kincardine
…
17


14. Kinross
…
6


15. Kirkcudbright
…
32


16. Lanark
…
34


17. Midlothian
…
9


18. Moray
…
3


19. Orkney and Zetland
…
8


20. Peebles
…
7


21. Perth
…
31


22. Renfrew
…
12


23. Ross and Cromarty
…
7


24. Roxburgh
…
7


25. Selkirk
…
6


26. Stirling
…
6


27. Sutherland
…
2


28. West Lothian
…
5


29. Wigtown
…
17




378

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Mechanisation

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the promised machinery from the U.S.A. has now been installed in the mining industry; and is he satisfied with the speed of the introduction of machinery and new methods.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd Georģe): Some American mining machinery has now been received, and production units are operating or about to start operations at 14 pits. Efforts are being made to accelerate delivery of further equipment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What is the percentage of mines now equipped with this modern machinery?

Major Lloyd Georģe: It depends on what my hon. Friend has in mind. If he means how many have been mechanised, about 65 per cent.; but if it is a question of the American machinery, that is, of course, a much smaller percentage.

Mr. Quintin Hoģģ: What is the reason for the apparent delay in the introduction of this machinery?

Major Lloyd Georģe: There has been no delay, but my hon. Friend will realise that the machinery has had to be obtained from America.

Mr. James Griffiths: In introducing this machinery will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman have regard to the widely different geological conditions existing here, and will the safety of the men be considered?

Major Lloyd Georģe: Before deciding on the introduction of these machines from America the most careful inquiries were made, and the safety of our own people was taken into consideration.

Underground Gasification

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is investigating the practicability of the underground gasification of coalmines and of abandoned mines; if so, when does he expect to be able to consider the results; is the experience of Russia being considered; and can he state the extent to which they have applied the policy of underground gasification.

Major Lloyd Georģe: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Wootton-Davies) on 8th February.

By-Products (Extraction)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are being taken to bring about the complete scientific utilisation of coal with a development of industry to extract the maximum by-products.

Major Lloyd Georģe: During the war marked progress has been made, particularly through the work of the Fuel Efficiency Committee, in increasing the efficiency with which coal is utilised. At the same time, a considerable increase has been achieved in the completeness of the extraction of important by-products from gas and coal tar. I am fully aware of the importance of developing a national fuel policy designed to ensure that the maximum possible advantage to the nation is extracted from our coal. A considerable volume of research work, which should contribute to this end, is in progress by the Fuel Research Station and the research associations of the fuel industries, and plans are being made for the expansion of this work. The whole subject is being actively studied by my Ministry.

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister satisfied that the Ministry and others concerned are treating this matter with the urgency that the situation demands, and, in view of the need for an enormous increase in our economic production immediately on the termination of hostilities, are steps being taken to see that this important industry is used for that purpose?

Major Lloyd Georģe: I can assure my hon. Friend that I personally regard this as a matter of very great urgency. I think the hon. Gentleman would probably be a little surprised at the progress made during the war. I assure him that I regard it as one of the most important matters with which we have to deal.

Price

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the average increase of 3s. per ton in the price of coal recently authorised by him is intended to be an average over the output

of each colliery or an average over the output of the whole industry.

Major Lloyd Georģe: Over the output of the whole industry.

Sir H. Williams: . That may have the effect that some collieries will be very adversely affected and some will do very well?

Major Lloyd Georģe: I think my hon. Friend will find that the increases were based on the position which obtained in those collieries, and were made in agreement with them.

Miners' Diseases (Certifications)

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many miners have had to cease work at the mines in the past six months in consequence of being certified under the silicosis and pneumoconiosis Orders; whether he is aware of the concern felt at the increase in the number of men so certified; and what steps are being taken to prevent the increase of this disease among miners.

Major Lloyd Georģe: The number of workmen who have been certified by the medical boards for total or partial suspension in the six months ended 31st December is 819. It does not follow, however, that all these men have left the industry, and it would be necessary to make detailed inquiries to obtain precise details. I am aware of, and share to the full, the concern which is felt about the increase in these numbers, but the increase is due almost entirely to the extension of the compensation scheme last July, which brought sufferers from pneumoconiosis within its scope. A number of expert committees, in addition to my own specialist inspectors, have the prevention of those diseases constantly under review, and, on their advice, I have made an Order conferring upon the inspectorate the power to require appliances to be installed for the suppression or extraction of airborne dust below ground. This Order applies to South Wales, and came into operation on the 1st January.

Mr. Griffiths: May I cite one case? In my own constituency 350 men are waiting to go before the board. Will the Minister consider steps to increase the effort to combat this disease, and will he, particularly, see that what is being done is explained to the people concerned?

Major Lloyd Georģe: I shall be very glad to do that. There is nobody more anxious than I to see every possible method of dealing with this disease used.

Mr. Palmer: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider the use of mass radiology?

Major Lloyd Georģe: I will look into that.

Shifts Worked

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power for the year 1943 or for the first 11 months thereof, the number of shifts per wage-earner per week worked in the coal industry.

Major Lloyd Georģe: The provisional figure of the average number of shifts worked per wage-earner per week during the year 1943 is 5.13.

Output, Employment and Wages

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how the tonnage of coal produced, number of miners employed and total of wages paid in the first six months of 1943, compare with the figures for the first six months of 1942, immediately preceding the introduction of Government control.

Major Lloyd Georģe: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) on 8th February last.

Mr. Keeling: As that answer contained a very large number of figures, will my right hon. and gallant Friend answer the Question on the Paper?

Major Lloyd Georģe: No, Sir, because it is exactly the same as the Question which my hon. Friend asked last week.

National Arbitration Tribunal Award (Evidence)

Commander Galbraith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he proposes to publish a Report of the evidence submitted to the National Arbitration Tribunal under the chairmanship of Lord Porter which dealt with the appeal for an increase in wages in the coalmining industry.

Major Lloyd Georģe: No, Sir. This evidence is not in my possession since the National Reference Tribunal, under the Chairmanship of Lord Porter, is an independent body, established after agreement

between both sides of the coalmining industry, as part of the National Conciliation Scheme for the coalmining industry.

Commander Galbraith: In view of the dissatisfaction aroused by this award, were any of my right hon. and gallant Friend's officials consulted before the Board announced its award? If so, would it not be better to issue a report?

Major Lloyd Georģe: It would not be in my power to do so. This is an independent Tribunal, and it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Colegate: Did my right hon. and gallant Friend's Department offer any advice to the Tribunal before the award was made?

Major Lloyd Georģe: Officials of my Department were asked by the Tribunal for certain advice, and they gave it.

Mr. Colegate: Does not that mean that the Ministry must take a very large part of the responsibility for the findings of this Board?

Major Lloyd Georģe: Certainly not. There were other people who gave their advice as well. The Ministry give the advice they are asked for, and they take no responsibility for what use is made of it.

Mr. Hoģģ: Is not the moral of both the Greene and the Porter awards that it does not follow that an eminent lawyer is the right person to preside over such a tribunal?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Utility Socks

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the short-leg utility socks are practically unsaleable so long as coupons have to be surrendered for them; and will he make them coupon-free to enable traders to dispose of their stocks.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Some millions of pairs of these socks are being sold each month. The answer to both parts of the Question is, therefore, No, Sir.

Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. Friend have further investigations made, particularly among small shopkeepers, to see


whether these socks are saleable; and if the information justifies it, will he consider revising his answer?

Mr. Dalton: My answer is perfectly correct. It is that some millions of pairs of socks are sold each month. That is not what I should call being practically unsaleable.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEN'S AUSTERITY CLOTHING (STOCKS)

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will replace the coupons surrendered by traders, when they purchased men's austerity clothing, in those instances where the changes recently announced by him have left traders with stocks of these articles which are unsaleable;
(2) if he consulted representatives of the National Association of Outfitters before he announced the recent changes in men's austerity clothing so that traders would not be left, without due notice, with stocks of goods which have lost their popular appeal and are unsaleable.

Mr. Colegate: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the change in regard to austerity styles of clothing for men at such short notice places traders in a serious position in regard to their stocks of these goods; and whether he has any proposals to make to facilitate disposal of such stocks.

Colonel Greenwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to make any provision for retailers of clothing to maintain their stocks in view of the handicap such firms or persons are now under due to the reduction in coupon value of utility clothing.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): These clothes are not unsaleable. On the contrary, many men evidently think that, at 20 coupons, austerity suits are a good bargain. I decided on the arrangements for the removal of the restrictions after hearing the views of the principal trade organisations concerned, including the National Association of Outfitters. I have further decided, as a special concession and after again consulting the trade organisations, to replace in full the coupons lost by traders through the down-pointing of these suits from 26 coupons to 20. I have

also arranged with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Supply, that with a view to relief in Europe, he will make further purchases of men's suits from traders who hold stocks surplus to their requirements.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask the Minister on what date he informed the National Association of his proposed change; on what date he announced it to this House, and also whether the traders will be able to get the coupons immediately or not?

Mr. Dalton: I cannot answer the question of dates without notice. Both my officials and I have had the opportunity of consultations with a number of organisations, and the particular organisation to which the hon. Member referred was seen by the Director-General of Civilian Clothing on my behalf, and was also seen by me, before I reached a final decision on points of detail. With regard to the time when coupons will be available, I repeat that I have made a special concession in view of representations made to me in this matter. This is a very heavy administrative task, and cannot be done in the twinkling of an eye. It will be done as soon as possible.

Mr. Graham White: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, as a result of the arrangements announced on Friday, that there will be no supplies of unsaleable goods left in the hands of retailers?

Mr. Dalton: I hope not. We do not desire any goods to be unsaleable, and I think I have indicated that a number of steps are being taken to move these stocks. I also ought to point out to the House and the country that non-austerity suits will not be available in any great quantity for some months. Further, as these stocks will be strictly limited, people will be well advised to make the best use of what there is.

Mr. Molson: May I ask the Minister why, if it is true, as he stated at the beginning of his reply, that stocks are being satisfactorily disposed of in this country, it should be necessary for him to arrange with the Ministry of Supply to buy some of these suits for the relief of Europe after the war is over?

Mr. Dalton: It is not a new move for the Minister of Supply to make purchases in advance for the needs of Europe. We have certain commitments in that regard, and I should have thought it would have


been welcomed by all those who are solicitous in that regard, that my right hon. Friend has found himself able to go a little further.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Minister recollect, on 22nd October last, saying to the National Association of Outfitters, "I shall be happy to make sure that you are not confronted with short notice for which you are not prepared"?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. The utmost notice has been given, but it is not possible, as my hon. Friend, as a business man, well knows, to have a large number of conversations with people, and for nothing to leak into the Press. Even on this occasion, after I had consulted a number of the organisations, to which I have referred, and before I made my announcement, it was all over the Press, and it was even announced—"announced" was the word used—on the B.B.C. on behalf of an organisation of the tailoring trade.

Colonel Arthur Evans: Will the Minister be prepared, if it is subsequently proved that traders, in spite of the arrangement he has made, should suffer financial loss, to take that into consideration?

Mr. Dalton: It is not a question of putting them to financial loss. It is a question of assisting them to clear stocks. I have made it perfectly clear to all concerned that I shall be very happy to see them from time to time, and to see how things are going. It is as yet too soon. The new coupon issue was made at the beginning of this month, and I timed this announcement so that people might have 24 coupons in hand at the beginning of the month, so that they were able to get for 20 coupons what was previously sold for 26. The effect of this arrangement has still to be seen.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCATION OF INDUSTRY

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make a statement indicating what measures are proposed to ensure national control of the location of industry in the post-war period.

Mr. Dalton: I would refer My hon. Friend to the statement which I made during the Debate on this subject on 8th December last.

Mr. James Griffiths: When will the Minister be in a position further to clarify it?

Mr. Dalton: Things are going on, on the lines which I have indicated to the House. My hon. Friend was, I think, out of the country at the time, but no doubt he has read what I said in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is all going forward.

Oral Answers to Questions — HARVESTED GRAIN (TRANSPORT AND STORAGE)

Sir Joseph Lamb: asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the increased number of combine harvesters which will be in use this season, what special arrangements have been made in regard to transport and storage facilities to enable grain to be cleared from the farms as soon as harvested.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): It is expected that 16 large Ministry of Food silos will be available by next harvest, in addition to existing storage facilities, to deal with combine harvested grain. Additional storage accommodation is also being provided at mills and on merchants' premises and to a limited extent on farms. We are in close touch with the Ministry of War Transport, and the rail position is being examined in areas where it is anticipated that difficulties may arise. Wider use is being made of water transport.

Sir J. Lamb: Can the Minister say whether particular care will be taken with regard to the siting of the silos?

Mr. Williams: Very great care was taken beforehand on the siting.

Mr. Levy: What arrangements are being made for water transport, in anticipation of drought in rural areas?

Mr. Williams: That is a matter for the Ministry of War Transport.

Sir Ralph Glyn: What arrangements are being made for drying grain which will be thrown on the market at a very early date?

Mr. Williams: The Ministry of Food have silos which will deal with at least 80,000 tons of grain, and they have also drying facilities available. Where other drying plants can be established, they are being established as quickly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION (RESETTLEMENT)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider issuing an Interim Report on the problems of resettlement in peace-time employment of persons demobilised from the Forces and from war industries, which is having the attention of several Government Departments concerned under the general direction of the Ministerial Committee on Reconstruction Problems.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The resettlement in peace-time employment of persons demobilised from the Forces and from war industries will involve a wide range or provisions and projects and will form part of the Government's general plan for the transition from war to peace. These are all the subject of active consideration at the present time and some resettlement plans have, in fact; already been brought before the House. I am not prepared, at this stage, to say what would be the most appropriate method and time for presenting the Government's plans on resettlement as a whole.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that I put a similar Question some seven or eight months ago, and that I then asked for an interim report? May I ask him again to see that we have a report, so that we may be satisfied that the Government are doing something about post-war reconstruction?

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member is getting more than a preliminary report.

Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a White Paper on the Government plans both on demobilisation and resettlement, so that the country can see that we have got a plan and know the deails of that plan?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, at the appropriate time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINION PRIME MINISTERS (MEETING)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Prime Minister if the pending Imperial Conference will include upon its agenda the subject of foreign investors acquiring a large measure of control of key industries in our Dominions and Empire with the object of obviating the economic control which

such investments by foreigners imposes, such as in Canada, where foreign financial interests hold nearly 50 per cent. of the total nominal value in Canadian industries.

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister cannot yet foreshadow what detailed questions will be discussed at the forthcoming meeting, which, I may point out, will not be a full Imperial Conference, but a personal meeting of Prime Ministers.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a note for the Prime Minister that this should be considered when the conference takes place?

Mr. Attlee: I am sure the Prime Minister will have noted that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

French Committee of National Liberation (Agreement)

Colonel Burton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the agreement recently concluded with the French envisages the liberation of French funds in Great Britain.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): No, Sir. The Financial Agreement recently concluded with the French Committee of National Liberation does not deal with this subject.

Motor Vehicles, Licences (Invalids)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider some reduction in the horse-power tax in the case of motor-cars whose owners are allowed a small ration of petrol on the grounds of invalidity.

Mr. Assheton: My right hon. Friend regrets that it would be quite impracticable to base the amount of the motor vehicle licence duty on the grounds upon which an allowance of petrol has been granted to the owner of the vehicle.

Sir H. Williams: Will the Minister not see whether it is not practicable? Is he not aware that the charge is sometimes as much as a shilling a mile, which is a heavy burden on these invalids?

Mr. Assheton: There are practical difficulties. Some people are given an allowance, not only because they are


invalids, but for other reasons, and it is impracticable to distinguish between them so far as taxation is concerned.

Sir H. Williams: But does the Minister of Fuel and Power know why he has done it?

Mr. Assheton: We cannot assess how much of it is in respect of invalidity.

Budget Deficit

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total Budget deficit accumulated since the outbreak of war and to what extent this has been financed by the banks.

Mr. Assheton: The total Budget deficit from the beginning of the war to the 31st January, 1944, was £10,900 millions. My right hon. Friend regrets it is not possible to give a total figure for the various forms of Government securities taken up by the banks.

Mr. Craven Ellis: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate, if not the actual figures, as to what volume of war finance is carried by the banking system?

Mr. Assheton: I can tell the hon. Member that the total amount outstanding and due to the banks on Treasury Deposit Receipts amounted to £1,380,000,000 on 31st January.

Mr. Stokes: If I put a question down, will the Minister tell me the amount of new money created by the banks since the war started?

Mr. Assheton: I do not think so.

Mr. Stokes: Do you know what it is? [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you?"]—Yes, about £2,000,000,000.

Tobacco Duty (Armed Forces)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with his forthcoming Budget, he will consider abolishing the Regulation under which members of the Armed Forces are allowed to purchase only 40 cigarettes weekly, less the past two tax increases, of which 20 must be of cheap brands.

Mr. Assheton: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot increase the quantities of cigarettes and tobacco which may be purchased by members of His Majesty's Forces in their canteens at the prices prevailing before the Budget of 1942.

Mr. Brown: If not, why not?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY PROPOSALS

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that there will be no agreement arrived at or merging of minds with the U.S.A. with regard to post-war currency until this House has been given an opportunity of discussing the matter without commitment direct or implied.

Mr. Assheton: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) on 25th January.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the assurances given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, responsible people on this side of the Atlantic are very much concerned about what is going on in America and about rumours from there that everything is fixed up?

Mr. Assheton: I can only refer to what my right hon. Friend has already said, that no commitment will be entered into without previous Debate in this House.

Mr. Stokes: What about the merging of minds?

Mr. Assheton: I cannot say anything about mergings of minds in free countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (WHITLEY COUNCILS)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, to encourage the development of Whitley Councils in the Civil Service and as these councils depend on effective staff organisations, he will give facilities to recognised associations to explain to non-members the benefits of the Whitley system and to recruit them to membership of the associations during official hours, provided that there is no interference with the work of the Departments.

Mr. Assheton: I am anxious that Government Departments should give all reasonable facilities for the development of Whitley machinery, but I do not feel that they can reasonably be asked to give general permission for Staff Association activities of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member in Government offices during working hours.

Mr. Brown: Does not the Financial Secretary realise that the whole Whitley system depends upon the recognition of organisation and that, if it is impossible to organise associations on the basis of where people live and if they are not allowed to do it on the basis of where they work, the erection of the whole structure is impaired?

Mr. Assheton: I should be very sorry to think that that was so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWEDISH FOOD SHIP (AIR ATTACK)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make a statement in regard to the recent attack by British aircraft on a Swedish ship carrying food to Greece.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): This ship was damaged in Chios Harbour as a result of an air attack carried out on the morning of 7th February. Full details of the incident are not yet available, but I understand that owing to changes in the sailing plan the presence of the ship in Chios Harbour was not notified to the British authorities in time to prevent the attack being made on the harbour. I need hardly say that His Majesty's Government greatly regret that damage should have been done to a neutral vessel in such circumstances.

Sir T. Moore: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, can he say whether the cargo was destroyed or not?

Sir A. Sinclair: I cannot say without notice.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Would it be possible, in view of the fact that this food was meant for Greece, for the British Government to accelerate or assist other cargoes to take its place?

Sir A. Sinclair: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — C.E.M.A. (GRANTS)

Captain Alan Graham: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the poor quality and debasing effect of the pictorial art evinced at the exhibitions provided by C.E.M.A., he will reduce in war-time the yearly grant to this institution from His Majesty's Treasury of £100,000, or at least confine

any future financial support to its musical and dramatic activities.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): My right hon. Friend cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's rather sweeping criticism of the quality and effect of the Art exhibitions sponsored by C.E.M.A., and would be glad if he would give particulars of the exhibitions he has in mind.

Captain Graham: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have had representations, both from Royal Academicians and a number of taxpayers all over the country, complaining of the use of the taxpayers' money to subsidise this debased quality of pictorial art?

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, far from having any debasing effect, last year over 2,000,000 people found enjoyment, uplift, and refreshment from art exhibitions organised and arranged by C.E.M.A.?

Mr. Lindsay: Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of soldiers have been to see and have appreciated these exhibitions?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members seem to be giving information and not asking for it.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask what these initials mean? Do they stand for the Church of England Music Association?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. It is entirely undenominational. It is the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts—which might be very helpful to South Croydon.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPANISH ONIONS (IMPORTS)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Food how many crates or tons of Spanish onions have been imported during 1944; what are the wholesale and the retail prices; and how are they being distributed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): I regret I am not able to disclose the figures of imports for which my hon. Friend asks. The maximum wholesale price of Spanish onions is at the rate of 50s. 6d. per cwt. The maximum retail price is 6½d. per lb. They have been allocated to the Armed Forces; to the Merchant Navy;. and, through wholesale distribution committees to retailers in Scotland, Northern Ireland,


South Wales and the counties of Northumberland, Durham, Cumberland and Westmorland.

Mr. Thorne: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me why we cannot get any Spanish onions in West Ham?

Mr. Mabane: The hon. Member can get them in West Ham.

Mr. Leach: Can the Minister say why Yorkshire is left out?

Oral Answers to Questions — BREADMAKING INDUSTRY (WORKER'S TRANSFER)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered an application from the Excel Company, Limited, John Street, West Smithfield, for a man by the name of Smith, of 188, Chadwell Heath Lane; and what he intends doing about the matter.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): My Department have consulted the Ministry of Food on this matter and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to agree to the transfer of Mr. Smith to Excel Company, Limited. There are more urgent vacancies in the breadmaking industry for which Mr. Smith should be submitted if he leaves his present employment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COURSING MEETINGS

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the live hare coursing meetings to be held on 23rd, 24th and 25th instant involving great waste of petrol, harmful use of agricultural land, wrong employment of large numbers of men, time-breaking by munition and other workers on a large scale and the encouragement of gross cruelty to animals; and if he will prohibit these meetings.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): As was stated by the Home Secretary in reply to a similar question last year, whatever may be the arguments for amending the provisions which Parliament enacted in the Protection of Animals Acts of 1911 and 1921 on the subject of coursing, it would not be justifiable to use the Government's wartime powers for the

purpose of dealing with the controversial question of blood sports. While I recognise my hon. Friend's desire to support by wartime considerations his objection to these sports, the information which the Home Office has been able to obtain on the points mentioned in his Question does not support his allegations or furnish grounds for enabling my right hon. Friend to hold that the coursing in question is likely to prejudice the efficient prosecution of the war.

Mr. Leach: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman conceive of any measures to put an end to this debasing and wasteful practice?

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend's views on this matter are, of course, well known, but I am sure that he will appreciate that, if Ministers were to start using their wartime powers to abolish sports and pastimes of which a section of the community disapproved, there would very shortly be no recreations or entertainments left.

Mr. N. Maclean: Apart altogether from the moral point of view, is not the other point in the Question a consideration—the waste of petrol on these three days' sport?

Mr. Peake: Of course, there is a use made of taxicabs for this and many other forms of recreation, but I am sure that my hon. Friend who asked the Question would be extremely sorry, and so should I, if the forthcoming Chess Congress in Blackpool, for instance, were to be abandoned on account of the fact that some people might go to it by taxicabs.

Mr. Astor: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the abolition of traditional field Sports of England is no part of the war aims of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Leach: Does the right hon. Gentleman conscientiously suggest that this is a pastime?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (PREFABRICATION)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works if he can give any information in connection with the building of prefabricated houses by the Government; how many it is intended to build, the number of rooms in each house, including the number of bedrooms, separately, and the amount of rent to be charged.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): The whole question of the building of temporary prefabricated houses will be considered by the Government after the proto-type house referred to recently by my Noble Friend in another place has been erected and examined by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland and the housing authorities and others interested. It is not possible, therefore, at the present time, to reply to the detailed points raised in my hon. Friend's Question.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Can my hon. Friend make clear to the country whether the Government have yet arrived at a policy in regard to prefabricated houses? Has it been decided to allow these houses, to be built?

Mr. Hicks: The answer to my hon. Friend would definitely be "Yes." There are two kinds of prefabricated houses. One is of the traditional type, which has nothing to do with this Question. The others are temporary prefabricated buildings and I have given my hon. Friend all the information I can. I would gladly give him more if I had it.

Sir Irving Albery: Why has the hon. Gentleman inserted the word "temporary" in his reply, as it is not contained in the Question?

Mr. Hicks: I deliberately put it in, in order to distinguish between prefabrication of the traditional type of house, and the temporary prefabricated house, which is of a smaller type, and will have to be given Government approval and will be subject to licence by the Government or the local authority as to how long it can be used.

Mr. De la Bère: Would it not be a good thing to have them all temporary, as we do not want to have them for all time?

Mr. Graham White: Is it not Government policy that these temporary prefabricated foam slag houses shall, in fact, be licensed for a period and be publicly owned?

Mr. Hicks: My hon. Friend is under some misapprehension. It is not intended to use foam slag for this temporary type.

Mr. E. Walkden: Is my hon. Friend aware that those who are advocating prefabricated

houses will not live in them themselves, and that it is that to which we object?

Mr. Hicks: I do not think that that is necessarily agreed. Many builders can build houses of the traditional type, of different materials from those of which they have customarily been built.

ELECTORAL REFORM (MR. SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE)

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the House will forgive me if I read out a rather long list. I thought hon. Members would like to know at the earliest opportunity the names of those who have accepted my invitation to serve on the Speaker's Conference. The names are as follow:

Viscount Margesson.
Lord Rea.
Lord Ammon.
Mrs. Adamson.
Major Buchan-Hepburn.
Mr. Erskine-Hill.
Colonel Arthur Evans.
Mr. Foster.
Miss Lloyd Georģe.
Mr. W. H. Green.
Mr. J. Griffiths.
Sir Douglas Hacking.
Mr. W. G. Hall.
Mr. Harvey.
Sir Austin Hudson.
Mr. G. Hutchinson.
Mr. Hamilton Kerr.
Sir Joseph Lamb.
Major McCallum.
Mr. Magnay.
Mr. Maxton.
Sir Joseph Nall.
Sir Hugh O'Neill.
Mr. Parker.
Mr. Petherick.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.
Mr. Pickthorn.
Mr. Pritt.
Mr. R. D. Scott.
Mr. Turton.
Sir Herbert Williams.
Mr. Woodburn.

Mr. Philip Allen of the Cabinet Office and Mr. A. C. Marples of the Committee Office, House of Commons, have been appointed Secretaries to the Speaker's Conference.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1943)

Estimate presented, of the further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1944 [by command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 33.]

BECKETT HOSPITAL AND DISPENSARY, BARNSLEY BILL

Report presented, of the Attorney-General on the Bill [pursuant to Standing Order 189]; to lie upon the Table.

NEW WRIT

For the Borough of Sheffield (Attercliffe Division), in the room of Cecil Henry Wilson, Esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 9th February.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 6.—(Local education authorities.)

Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir Herbert Williams: When the clock interrupted us last week, I was discussing some of the general issues arising under this Clause. I realised that, in one sense, the Debate must be rather narrow now, because the major issue will come up on the Schedule. There is the fact, however, that this Clause lays it down that the local education authority is to be a county council, whether of a county or of a county borough, and I am saying this now in order that the Minister may turn over in his mind the kind of situation which will arise. Some of the urban district councils, and some of the municipal boroughs are, in fact, larger in population than many of the county boroughs. So this Clause, as it stands, does not deal with the real issue which is: Is the local authority large enough to do the job? The selection of the county councils and the county borough councils by that test is a bad one. It is bad from many points of view.
Let us take the case of a large county which happens to contain a municipal borough with a population of approximately 200,000, and it is about 50 miles from the county town. At the present


time education is managed by people on the spot. Unless there is a real modification in this Clause, the control of the education of this large town will be transferred from the place where the education has been carried on hitherto, to a much smaller town 50 miles away. The people who are now engaged in this task are called to serve on the local authority or, if co-opted members, on the Education Committee and it is possible to do so, but in future any effective part they play will involve them in a journey to the county town, which means a whole day to attend a committee meeting. That is going to take out of our municipal and educational life many very able and enthusiastic persons. People can give up part of the morning or part of the afternoon to attending an important committee meeting, but to ask them to give up a whole day is an entirely different proposition. Therefore you are going to exclude from participation in educational administration a great many of the most valuable people now engaged in it.
This Clause raises one of the most important questions in the Bill and I am quite certain that if, for example, one of these strange by-elections we are now having, broke out in one of the towns affected by this Clause, any candidate who stood for the preservation of the educational rights of the existing local authority would be successful over any candidate the Government cared to send along. I should be delighted to oppose any one of His Majesty's Ministers in a borough like that, and I would be returned with an overwhelming majority. They could talk as much as they liked about winning the war, the Prime Minister, and the magnificent men he has around him, but that would not affect the electorate in the least if they thought my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education was taking away their local powers. This is the first time this issue has arisen in connection with the Government reconstruction legislation. It is going to be a first-class issue and I hope the Government will consider, at this early stage the very strong feelings of those interested in local government.

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: I have been trying to find out exactly what is the effect of the operation of Clause 6, because I had hoped to come down on the side of the Minister. Looking at it quite

impartially, and with a desire to understand a very difficult provision, it seems to me a much straighter and neater scheme that there should not be these patchworks of educational monopolies all over the country, but that there should be a larger authority which would deal with the problem of the education of the country out of its larger resources. Nevertheless, having said that, I certainly have many doubts and misgivings about how this scheme is going to operate, and I should like to put one or two questions to the Minister. It is an extraordinary thing that local authorities are always complaining of the burden Parliament imposes upon them; yet whenever one suggests that the burden should be lightened there is tremendous opposition. But that is not an unhealthy sign. It shows how extraordinarily interested local authorities are in the administration of government and how proud they are of their traditions.
There is one point which is not clear in the Bill. Under this Clause, as from 1st April, 1945, apparently, the officers of a borough or urban district are transferred to a county. They are transferred when Part II of the Bill operates. Later, when we come to the Schedule—I do not want to go into details but I must illustrate my point—the borough or urban district has six months within which to claim that it is an exempted borough or district. A borough with more than 60,000 population has six months within which to give notice to the county authority that it is exempted. Thereafter, it frames a scheme of divisional administration which is submitted to the county council and so on to the Minister of Education. If the officers of the excepted authority of my imaginary borough are transferred from 1st April, 1945, who frames this scheme of divisional administration? The officers have, apparently, gone to the county council, yet it will be the officers of that council who will draw up the scheme of divisional administration within the six months from 1st April, 1945. Am I wrong in my interpretation? Are the officers of the excepted borough or district transferred only when the scheme of divisional administration is framed and prepared and submitted to the Minister and the Minister has made an Order to that effect? If my latter interpretation is right, it would be for the convenience of the excepted borough or district that it should obtain absolute control over its officers while this


scheme is being drawn up. There is another point: can the excepted borough or district, in framing its scheme of divisional administration, include in its area a contiguous area, such as a rural district which it normally serves?

The Chairman: I do not think that question arises here. It arises later in the Bill, on the Schedule.

Sir G. Shakespeare: I accept your Ruling, Major Milner. It is very difficult to distinguish between the Clause and the Schedule. However, I will leave that point for the present and ask the Minister to reply later to my question about the transfer of officers.

Mr. Loftus: I want to take up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) in his speech a few minutes ago. This Bill is the first step towards national reconstruction after the war and this Clause involves the first step towards the centralisation of authority. That is an issue which will arise in all our post-war policies and I want to say, quite frankly, that I shall oppose centralisation, the removal from local authorities of their power, unless it is proved to be absolutely essential. This Clause has aroused consternation, not only among members of local authorities but among our ordinary citizens. I have been stopped in my constituency by many parents, with children at local schools, who are filled with concern at the effect of this Clause.
I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon. Under this Clause authority may be vested 40 or 50 miles away. In Lowestoft to-day, we have a vigorous authority and a population of nearly 50,000. Under the Clause, the new authority will be 44 miles away—an 88 mile journey for those who have to attend its meetings. What will be the result? The professional man, the shopkeeper and the working man, who are members of the local education authority at present, with full powers, will not be able to participate in full administration. An ordinary working-man can attend a committee meeting in the evening. He cannot spend a whole day going to Ipswich and back. In Lowestoft our municipal elections are vigorously contested. In the 25 years I have been a member of the county council I have

never known an election for a county councillor in Lowestoft. Why? Because most people have not the time to attend meetings. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) said that the proposed scheme would be more efficient. Efficiency is a means towards an end. The mistake we are making to-day is to make the means into an end. The object of efficiency in government should be to give the fullest opportunity to the individual to participate in the democratic administration of the country.
I say to my right hon. Friend that the onus of proof that this Clause is necessary rests on those who propose it. It must be proved to be absolutely necessary. I would challenge my right hon. Friend to prove that this Clause is necessary on the grounds of efficiency. Take the record of the Part III education authorities. Over 80 per cent. have certificated teachers, as against 60 per cent. for the counties. Take their record under the Hadow reorganisation scheme. In 1934 the boroughs carried out 59 per cent. reorganisation, the counties 39 per cent. and the Part III education authorities 71 per cent. It may be said that you must have the whole matter of education under one authority. Is that the argument? I would answer that if that argument is used we have to include the universities; by including the universities we are on the road to regionalisation and it is therefore an argument against the county councils. The hon. Member for Norwich suggested that the Clause is desirable on financial grounds, but we can prove, by the progress of reorganisation under the Part III authorities, that that argument does not apply. It can be proved in another way. I think many of these large Part III authorities contribute more to secondary education than they receive back in the cost of their secondary schools. I can prove that in my own case.
This Clause cannot, therefore, be defended on the grounds either of efficiency, of progress or of finance, and I would say quite bluntly that the Department has always been prejudiced against the Part III authorities. In 1908 they issued a report under the Balfour Act hinting that Part III authorities would have to be abolished. The Hadow Report suggested that Part III authorities could not carry out reorganisation, but that has been


proved to be entirely wrong, because they have carried it out much better than the other authorities. Inquiries to examine the whole question of Part III authorities have been asked for, but they have always been refused, and now those authorities are to be abolished without any inquiry. I would refer to one remark which the Parliamentary Secretary made last week. He made an attack upon the Lowestoft Education Authority, using the phase:
I can remember days when the hon. Member could hardly have wished to be associated with the Lowestoft Education Authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1944; col. 1829, Vol. 396.]
Was that remark either wise or generous? The Lowestoft Education Authority made one mistake more than 20 years ago. To bring that up after this lapse of time is surely ungenerous. Any continuing corporate body always makes mistakes; even individuals do; even such exalted individuals as Parliamentary Secretaries may occasionally make mistakes; but a long record of public service should make us forget those mistakes and Lowestoft has such a record. It is a live, progressive authority.

The Chairman: I do not think the hon. Member ought to proceed with a discussion of the record of Lowestoft.

Mr. Loftus: Surely I may point out, using it as a typical Part III authority, that it has been more progressive, more in advance than the county authority.

The Chairman: The hon. Member was going into more detail than that to which he is entitled. Matters of that sort should be left until we come to the Schedule.

Mr. Loftus: Could I say in general terms, in answer to that remark of my hon. Friend, which was resented, that secondary schools and technical schools were established in Lowestoft some ten years before there were any in the county? I am rather cramped by your ruling, Major Milner, but I would point out that this Part III authority in Suffolk contains a very large proportion of the population of the county and represents as much as a quarter of the rates. My right hon. Friend may answer that a Part III authority representing a population of 50,000, and with 6,000 or 7,000 pupils in the elementary schools, will have delegated powers. That answer is not satisfactory, for the reason that

these delegated powers will not make it a real authority but a puppet authority. I have looked in a dictionary for the definition of "puppet" and find it is "A small figure controlled by wires—one whose actions are controlled by another."
If we take away the power of the purse, the power of raising rates and loans, if, in short, we take away the power of finance we take away the reality of power. I would conclude with this final remark. I believe that this centralisation will be destructive of vigorous local government spirit in this country. We ought to encourage such a spirit rather than to discourage it, because on it depends our great power of self-organisation which was so invaluable three years ago. Therefore, because I believe this Clause is an injury to the whole spirit and vitality of our local government, if it comes to a Division I shall vote against it.

Mr. Viant: I understand that when this Clause is passed by the Committee the Part III authorities will cease to exist.

The Chairman: No, that matter will still be open for discussion on the Schedule because the Clause says that it is subject to the provisions of Part I of the First Schedule.

Mr. Viant: I am much obliged for that point. Nevertheless, the Debate, so far as it has gone and as it has been reported in the Press has caused a considerable amount of apprehension among those who have been serving on Part III authorities. We were given to understand that the underlying principle of this Bill as far as finance was concerned was to level up the poorer areas, and that if that were to be done it was essential that the administrative areas should be considerably enlarged. To that end the county has been accepted as the financial area. I am not persuaded that this will ease the financial disparities. Counties are in no way equal as regards either population or rateable value, and so the main purpose of the Bill in that regard will not be achieved, though the position will undoubtedly be improved. I observe that county boroughs, some with a population of 60,000, are still to retain their powers. That in itself will create a disparity so far as finance is concerned, and that has naturally disappointed boroughs such as there are in the County of Middlesex, with


populations ranging from 60,000 up to 200,000, who have hitherto had administrative powers which are now to be vested in the county. They are naturally aggrieved at such a suggestion.
The point made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) is a very important one. I know from my personal experience of the 14 Part III authorities in Middlesex that they have serving on them some of the outstanding administrators in education. These representatives will be unable to afford the time to go to the county hall. It was easy for them in the evening after they had finished their business, to go to the local town hall and give their valuable services in the interests of the community. We shall lose a good deal as a result of this change, and I am not sure that the proposals which have been put forward will outweigh what we shall lose. We must appreciate, also, that we shall not remove all the anomalies which have been pointed out. The differences in population in different counties will make that impossible. I have had an opportunity of discussing this question with some of the people affected, and they tell me candidly that they will be unable to serve in their local areas because they fear that they will be nothing more than a rubber stamp. The county authorities will make all the important decisions, the reports will be sent to the local areas and the authorities there will be asked to place a rubber stamp on them and carry out the decisions. We are not likely to get these exceptional men and women, with years of service on these administrative authorities, to serve in that capacity. They want to have some semblance of power, want to be able to exercise some initiative, want to be able to bring forward proposals, and unless they get that power I feel that we shall be deprived of their excellent services. Therefore, I hope that when we discuss the Schedule in relation to this Clause the Minister will be able to make some proposals which will persuade those good folk that they will have some real power and be able to put their impress upon the education of this country.

Mr. Lipson: This Clause does raise extremely important issues, and I hope the Committee will be well aware of what those issues are before it

agrees to pass it in its present form. It not only envisages changes in educational administration by restricting, subject to Part I of the First Schedule, educational administration to county boroughs and county councils, but it also makes a revolution in local government. The argument advanced by the President of the Board of Education for this change is that there are too many local authorities with whom he has to deal. If that argument is accepted by this House, so far as education is concerned, why should it not be accepted so far as other services are concerned? We have been told that we are to have new proposals—

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I must say that the hon. Gentleman is giving his own conception of my speech. If he likes to base his argument upon his own view of what I may say, he is quite entitled to do so. Perhaps my views are rather broad.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. Is it in Order to discuss proposals for the devolution of local government because, if so, others would like to answer the hon. Gentleman?

The Chairman: No, that matter should not be discussed here. I hope that the Committee will assist me in this Debate on this Clause. It is a matter of some difficulty to know precisely what hon. Members are going to say and to pull them up at the appropriate time. I hope hon. Members will confine themselves solely to the general question and not enter into details.

Mr. Lipson: There is tremendous concern in the country at the proposals laid down in Clause 6, and it is no good hiding the fact. I wonder if there is any way of putting forward a discussion on a vital issue of this kind. We have to discuss the details of handing over education to an area unit, which will not be decided until the end of the Committee stage of the Bill under Part I of the Schedule and it does make it difficult if there is no way of having a basic discussion at an earlier period.

The Chairman: There is no way of doing that and, if the hon. Member will forgive me for saying so, it does not seem to me to matter very much whether it is discussed in the early part of the Debate, or in the later part.

Mr. Lipson: It is the view of those who are opposed to this Clause, that if they allow that Clause to go through in its present form, without some reassuring statement, it will be extremely difficult for them to be able to make their point of view clear on the Schedule. Clause 6 definitely lays down that the effective educational authorities are to be the councils of county councils and of county boroughs, but there is nothing at present—

The Chairman: The provision is subject, of course, to the provisions of the Schedule.

Mr. Lipson: As the First Schedule is drawn up, there is nothing which can give any controlling power to the existing Part III authorities unless the Minister is prepared to make concessions. I want to say that I consider that the President has been ill-advised in the test which he has applied in deciding which should be the education authorities to carry out the proposals of this Bill. It is vital for the implementing of this Bill that the education committees which are to carry out its proposals should be those in which the President can have absolute confidence. To decide this it is necessary, therefore, that he should look at their past record and if there are some authorities which have shown themselves in the past to be great friends of education, which have shown a high standard of administration in that their buildings are good and also that they have selected a high proportion of fully qualified teachers and if they have carried out previous schemes of reorganisation, surely it is to those authorities that the President ought to turn rather than to the less progressive ones.
I am concerned that the right hon. Gentleman should have singled out county councils and county boroughs as the education authorities to the exclusion of the Part III authorities. I wonder whether the Minister has given consideration to the fact that under post-war conditions it is going to be extremely difficult for people who have to work for their living to be able to give the time to county council administration and that therefore it is doubtful whether county councils will be able in the future to be as effective even as they have been in the past. In these proposals the Minister is sacrificing some of the best friends of

education. We have been told that the reason for this is that the President is anxious to establish a national system of education. I hope that in his reply he will give some clear indication as to what he means by a national system, because this Bill does not provide a national system of education. There cannot be a national system of education which excludes the public schools and the direct grant-earning schools.

The Chairman: We cannot go into that question on Clause 6.

Mr. Lipson: I want to say that the Part III authorities are extremely anxious to be able to continue to play their part in the administration of this Bill, but they do not see how they can do it if their powers are to be taken away in the manner envisaged in Clause 6. I must, therefore, ask the President if he will give some reassurance to the Part III authorities that he has in mind, some means by which their powers can be as effective in the cause of education in the future as they have been in the past. I am not asking that the Part III authorities should not play their part in providing the county rate. One of the reasons advanced for this proposal is that the President is anxious to spread the rate burden over a larger area so as to equalise opportunity in education, but it would still be possible to allow Part III authorities to produce their own budget and to pay the county rate. There are two ways in which this could be done.

The Chairman: That point certainly does not arise in Clause 6.

Mr. Lipson: It appears to me, Major Milner, extremely difficult far those of us who want to put the case of the Part III authorities to do so, owing to your Ruling, but I must accept it. I have to say in conclusion that they feel that the proposal in Clause 6 which means, in effect, that over half the present education authorities will cease to function, is something that is bad for education and also bad for local government in this country. They fear that if they accept this proposal for education, other services will, inevitably, go and that local government as it has existed in this country for so long, will cease. The real life of local government exists in the borough rather than in the county, and as one of the


purposes of this Bill is to create better citizens, it seems to be very unfortunate that at a time when that is the objective to be attained, you are going to weaken local government and deprive large numbers of citizens of the opportunity of taking effective part in local affairs.

Mr. Cove: I do not intend to go into any details even if I were allowed to do so. I want the Committee to consider the broad issues—there are not many—and I would also like them, if I may say so in all humility, to look upon this question apart from any personal interest they may have. I have two Part III authorities in my area and I have told them, quite plainly and bluntly, that I think, in the interests of education in that area, they ought to go out of existence. They have neither the numerical resources as far as population is concerned, nor the financial resources to make a proper contribution to a national system of education. I have much sympathy with Part III authorities and it is perfectly true that a number of them have been progressive. It is equally true that many county authorities have been progressive, but it has depended largely, as a matter of fact, on who has been in control in these areas. Therefore, I do not think that it is, essentially, a matter of machinery but the fact that at the moment these Part III authorities do not control their education. Lowestoft, for instance, has no power to have secondary schools. It is silly that Part III authorities have no power to erect a secondary school. They have control of elementary education, but no control of secondary. How can you get a unified progressive system if you have got that kind of administration? The principle is thoroughly unsound and reactionary.

Mr. Hutchinson: May I point out to the hon. Member that if he will examine the Amendments that have been put down on this Bill, he will see that nobody is defending that system.

Mr. Cove: I am not going into details, but the fact remains that Part III authorities have no control over the secondary school system and therefore there is a cleavage, as it were, in the development of the education system in these areas. The children in such areas have not the rights and the facilities enjoyed by

children in other areas. I say, quite definitely, that the principle enunciated in this Bill by the right hon. Gentleman for the unification of what is now being called the "all purposes authority" is absolutely wrong. There may be adjustments here and there, but the principle is absolutely wrong. I will not go any further. I am not going to transgress, and my main purpose in getting up was to make those general points. I conclude by saying: let us try to secure a national system of education. Let us try at the beginning of the Bill to approach it in that manner. Let us realise that the unification of the education system is essential. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies) goes even further. He wants the whole thing to be financed out of the National Exchequer. I wholeheartedly support the passing of the Clause so that we may get on to other details.

Sir Adam Maitland: I will do my best to keep within the terms of the strict Ruling which you, Major Milner, have given and confine myself to the question whether or not Clause 6 should stand part of the Bill. With a good deal of what the hon. Member who spoke last has said I heartily agree. I hope he will not accuse me, because I have one or two Part III authorities in my constituency, of taking a narrow and prejudiced view, but I am very much concerned about whether or not the authorities named in the Clause, as it stands, are in fact the right bodies upon which to rely in the future for the administrative work of education. I was inspired in one part of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister when, in asking the Committee to bow to your Ruling as to the narrow limits of the Debate, he said:
If they do, that, they will find that the Government will be ready here and now to declare that, if they are not satisfied with the opportunities, the Committee must look again, in the succeeding stages of the Bill, at Clause 6. We do not want to try and rush the Committee on Clause 6, but to have a proper look at it after the Committee has had a chance of looking at the First Schedule."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1944: col. 1861, Vol. 396.]
I interpret that to be a statement by the Minister that he will bring up the Clause to the Committee again if we find, on getting to the Schedule, that some of the provisions we desire and agree to insert cannot be properly inserted there. I was dispirited, however, to find in another


part of his speech that my right hon. Friend said, that in considering the First Schedule, hon. Members would first have the opportunity of considering the addition of extra authorities. On that he said he would be misleading the Committee if he were too hopeful of their being successful. I am sorry to see that, because I think that is really the crux of the situation and is to some extent the cause of the lengthy discussion on this Clause. Certainly I, and some of my hon. Friends, would like my right hon. Friend not to be so emphatic in his rejection of the idea that the main bodies are to be the county councils and county boroughs. It is important to remember this. Although my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has questioned whether it would be in order to discuss it—

Earl Winterton: I never discussed anything of the sort. I raised a point of Order.

Sir A. Maitland: Whether it is appreciated or not, it is a fact that the matter to which I will briefly refer is exercising the minds of some Part III authorities.

Earl Winterton: May I ask for the protection of the Chair? There is a longstanding custom of the House that a point of Order shall not, subsequently, be the subject of Debate. If my hon. Friend wishes to refer to my point of Order, I shall claim to have the right to reply, but I submit that it is contrary to the practice of the House.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member would be well advised to pass on from that subject.

Sir A. Maitland: If I have transgressed I apologise to my noble Friend but, in bringing him to his feet, I may have proved myself a better advocate than I ever hoped to be. However, I will not trespass further. Clause 6 sets out for the first time in one of the first of our Reconstruction Measures that these two authorities shall be the type of authority on which the Government of the day rely, namely, county councils and county boroughs. It is upon that decision many persons are concerned. I hope my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the general principles that are involved and the anxieties that are involved in the passing of the Clause.

I accept his assurance that it can be brought back to the Committee if necessary and I hope it will be the case that when we discuss the Schedule some of these Part III authorities are included as local Education Authorities. Surely the test should be their efficiency.

Mr. Hutchinson: The speech of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) shows how very desirable it is that this discussion should not be unduly curtailed. He pointed out, quite rightly, that there are many existing Part III authorities who are not possessed of the necessary resources or population to undertake the responsibilities which the Bill would impose upon them and that the existing system, under which responsibility for elementary education is separated from responsibility for secondary education, is a system which is really indefensible. We shall all agree with him in both those criticisms. That shows how very desirable it is that at an early stage of the Bill the Committee should appreciate what it is that the local education authorities are asking. Unfortunately our discussions hitherto have taken such a course that we have had no opportunity of explaining what it is that the local authorities ask. A short time spent now in discussing the proposals which the local authorities may put forward when we reach the right place will not be wasted.

The Chairman: That would involve repetition. We cannot have a Debate on precisely the same subject on a later occasion. It is in the interest of the Committee that that detailed discussion should be postponed to the appropriate place, having regard to the fact that the position is safeguarded by the opening words of the Clause.

Mr. R. Morgan: I think it would help us to get on with the Bill if the Minister could give us an assurance that, when we get to the First Schedule, this will be fully threshed out and the facts put before us. We are afraid that if the Debate lingers on we shall come to the Guillotine stage, and this will not get the proper hearing that it ought to have. If we could get an assurance at this stage it would shorten the Debate.

The Chairman: The Guillotine is a matter for the Government and not for the Chair. It seems to me common sense that the less time we spend on the matter now the more time will be available on the Schedule, where I have given my assurance that as far as the Chair is concerned, there will be the fullest possible opportunity.

Mr. Hutchinson: I have no wish to enter into details, but the speech of the hon. Member for Aberavon shows that the Committee hitherto has not understood what it is that the local authorities want. It is desirable that, before we enter upon the 104 Clauses which lie before us, the Committee should appreciate what authorities are likely to become the local education authorities.

Mr. Cove: I think I know what they want.

Mr. Hutchinson: If the hon Member knows what they want, then a good deal of his speech might well have been omitted. The local authorities, as far as I am able to speak for them, entirely accept my right hon. Friend's proposal that there should be a single authority in each area to administer all branches of the educational service. They recognise that that authority must necessarily control an area of suitable size and must be possessed of adequate resources. They recognise, too, that there exist authorities which are not possessed of the necessary population or resources to make it possible for them to undertake the responsibilities that the Bill would impose on them, and must therefore necessarily be entrusted with delegated authority. What is it that the local authorities are asking the President to do? There are two principle matters. First of all, we want him, if we can persuade him to do so, to agree that authorities which are neither county councils nor county borough councils may, nevertheless, be local educational authorities under the Bill if they are in possession of the necessary population and resources to enable them to discharge the extended functions of local education authorities with full efficiency.

The Chairman: The proper place to do that is on the First Schedule. The hon. and learned Gentleman must confine himself to the question of the Clause standing part and not go into other matters which will be discussed at a later stage.

Mr. Hutchinson: I will endeavour to keep myself properly within your Ruling, Major Milner, but may I remind you that the local authorities have had very little opportunity hitherto of stating what their case is. There is a certain amount of misunderstanding as to what their case will be when we come to the Schedule. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) pointed out, it would be a good thing if we had some idea here of what the Committee will be asked to put into the Schedule hereafter.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman can discuss on the Schedule Amendments that have been put down to effect the purpose he has in mind. This is not the occasion to put them forward.

Mr. Hutchinson: Let me, therefore, in conclusion say this. I have indicated that those local authorities, for whom I am sometimes able to say something, appreciate that there will be authorities which are not possessed of the necessary resources to undertake these extended responsibilities. In the case of those smaller local authorities we shall endeavour to persuade my right hon. Friend to agree that the functions of the local education authorities shall be delegated, not to the new body called a "divisional executive" which this Bill proposes to bring into existence, but to the councils of the existing Part III authorities. We are asking that where there exists a Part III authority—

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to be asking for that now. He ought to ask for it when we come to the Schedule. I have no desire to be unduly critical, but I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will confine his remarks to the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Hutchinson: I must, of course, keep within your Ruling, and I am trying to do so. I would point out, however, that we are discussing Clause 6, which provides that two authorities, and only two, subject to the provisions of the first Schedule, are to be the local education authorities.

The Chairman: Precisely, "subject to the provisions of the Schedule." I am sure the Committee will appreciate that it will be competent to discuss the authorities which hon. Members may desire


to make education authorities when we come to the Schedule, and that the field will remain open in the meantime.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am grateful for what you have said, Major Milner. There is no doubt in my mind that the field will be fully open for discussion on the Schedule, but before we proceed with the rest of this Bill, the Committe ought to understand what the case of the local authorities will be. I suggest that that is not out of Order on the Question "That the Clause stand part." As I have already said, there are two principal matters: first, those local authorities which are big enough to undertake the burden ought not to be wholly excluded from the opportunity of doing so; and, second, those authorities which are not big enough to bear the burden ought to be given the opportunity of receiving delegated functions from the local education authority, instead of having set up in their areas these new bodies which will have to take over from them so many powers which they have long exercised.

Major Woolley: I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee are grateful for the categorical assurance which you, Major Milner, have given that there will be a full opportunity when the First Schedule is debated to discuss the point which is so much in the minds of Part III authorities. The only two Members who have spoken in favour of Clause 6 are the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). The hon. Baronet mentioned that he had come down on the side of the Minister, and he seemed to give as his reason that it was a neater sort of setup. The hon. Member for Aberavon mentioned that he did not want people to take a parochial view. Neither neatness nor parochialism is the thing that is stimulating some of us. What we are concerned about is the education of the child, and some of us believe that the only two authorities mentioned in Clause 6 will push authority further away from the heart throb of the people and that that is not calculated to be beneficial to the child. We should keep that in mind. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) mentioned that the Government were introducing this rather novel set-up and said it might be the type which we shall use for local government administration in

other directions. I ask the Committee to appreciate that the further away we push local authorities from the heart throb of the people, the less efficiency and less interest at the centre shall we have.

Mr. Parker: I wish to say on behalf of my hon. Friends that if this matter is pressed to a Division we shall support the Government. We gave a pledge at the beginning of the Debate that if we felt that the Bill was being hindered or injured by any vested interest we would rally to the support of the Government and we feel in this matter that the Part III authorities and their supporters are vested interests. We take the view that in educational administration we should choose the best form of public authority to carry it out. We do not feel that the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) and others would lead to the best form of educational administration. We feel that for many reasons the suggestions of the Government are the best form of local government machinery for carrying on education.

Mr. Hutchinson: May I put this to my hon. Friend? My right hon. Friend suggested that 12 county boroughs with a population of less than 60,000 were suitable bodies to carry out the extended responsibilities under this Bill.

Mr. Parker: That is a point that may be gone into further at a later date. We feel that it is desirable, on the whole, to have a fairly wide area for the levying of the education rates, for the recruitment and promotion of teachers, and for planning and carrying out the full national system of education. We also take the view that there should be as much decentralisation as possible in certain areas.
May I take the case of my constituency, which is a large part of the county of Essex? In that area there is one Part III authority in Barking and there are other towns, like Dagenham and Hornchurch, which are much bigger but which are not Part III authorities. Essex will be the education authority for the area, but it will devolve powers to large towns of 60,000 inhabitants which will have initiative in drawing up plans for education in their area. Above these individual towns there will be committees covering two, three or more of them, which will have powers for further education. The


whole will be worked into a plan of the county council, which will be the rate levying authority. I suggest that some such machinery would be a good workable type and would be a reasonable compromise between the suggestions put forward in the preliminaries before this Bill was introduced.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the last three lines of this Clause:
and shall be employed by that authority upon the terms and conditions upon which they were employed by the council of the county district immediately before that date.
Do the words "terms and conditions upon which they were employed "mean" the same character"? I had an Amendment, which was not called, to add the words "and not necessarily upon the same duties." Would the Minister explain whether it will be essential that the officers should be employed on the same duties as they performed before?

Sir John Mellor: The drafting of this Clause is unfortunate because it leaves open essential matters of principle which cannot be debated until we reach the Schedule. That is under your Ruling, Major Milner. Therefore, we shall not know how we stand upon essential matters of principle until we have reached and finished with the Schedule. If, under the Schedule, the limitation of authority to the county councils and county boroughs is removed Clause 6 will have to be amended because it transfers both property and personnel of an educational character from the county districts to the county councils. Therefore, if under the Schedule, as it may be amended, certain county districts are created education authorities, they will find themselves without educational property or personnel. Upon educational grounds alone, apart from other considerations, it is undesirable that the Committee should give general acceptance to the proposition that prima fade the county councils should be education authorities to the exclusion of the county districts. County councils are often the least convenient and least efficient authorities for the administration of what is essentially a local service. They are remote geographically and remote in understanding—geographically because the county towns are often far distant

from the outlying districts of the county; and remote in understanding because it is difficult for county councillors to keep in close touch with all problems throughout the county.
Everybody recognises that the authorities which will be constituted education authorities must be authorities for virtually all educational purposes, certainly for primary and secondary education. They must be large enough for that purpose and also small enough to preseve local interest. County councillors can only be familiar with the affairs of their own districts. It is impossible for them to travel round the county in order to appreciate the peculiar circumstances of districts other than their own. The result is that on the county councils only a few councillors have any real knowledge of the details of the affairs of any district within the county, and the affairs of the county councils—and this applies particularly to education—inevitably remain to be determined by the permanent officials. The result is that they tend to become more and more miniature bureaucracies.
I think that that affects the democratic structure of local government and, if the Clause remains without considerable amendment, will seriously prejudice the future. My right hon. Friend recognised, when he spoke before in the Debate, that the Clause comes down on the side of the county authorities and he held out very little hope of adding other authorities. I recognise that in this matter the interests of education must be paramount and that extraneous matters should not be confused with it, but from that angle and the angle of education alone, the Clause provides a very clumsy form of restriction. Several hon. Members have pointed out that it admits as authorities units of local government which are much smaller than many which it excludes. That rather shows that the structure of the Clause is purely for departmental convenience. It ignores the merits of particular cases. In my constituency there is a borough, the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, which has administered education for over 400 years. That borough retains absolutely nothing, under the Bill as at presented drafted.

The Chairman: The place for discussing the merits of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield as an education authority is during the Debate on the Schedule.

Sir J. Mellor: I thank you, Major Milner, and I will not pursue that very important subject at this stage. The Clause also ignores the rapid changes which have taken place in population. There is an urban district in my constituency, Solihull, whose population more than doubled between 1931 and 1939, and similar changes have taken place elsewhere. The purpose of the Clause could be equally well achieved without this balanced form of concentration and I hope that the Committee will not accept the principle of the transfer of authority from the county districts to the county councils at least until after the matter has been considered in more detail than is possible at this stage and, indeed, until after the Schedule has been considered.

Professor Gruffydd: In case it should go out to the country that this Committee is unanimously condemnatory of the Clause, I should like to point out that there have been only three speeches in support of it and mine will be the fourth. It is very natural that people who come from parts of the country where there are Part III authorities in office should have heard that side of the question discussed, and that side alone, but those of us who come from counties and other parts, have heard the other side of the question. I believe that there is much greater concern in the country in favour of the extinction of Part III authorities than against it.
One of the alarming features of the development of education in the last few years has been the progressive localisation and provincialisation of education. A county council, at best, is provincial, and the Part III authority is more provincial still. I am going to content myself with giving to the House one example of what happens in my area. There is, in Glamorgan, a very good Part III authority, the Rhondda Education authority, which happens to be the only authority in the country which has control of secondary education as well as of primary education. A boy or girl living in the Rhondda and who has never been out of the Rhondda, goes to one of the four secondary schools. Having passed out of one of the four schools, he or she goes down to the University college in Cardiff, twelve miles away. He goes home every night, never lives in Cardiff

at all and never mixes with the other students. He takes some sort of degree in Cardiff, and immediately afterwards is appointed on the staff of one of those four county schools. The whole of the Part III authority is in-bred from top to bottom, and, so far as I have been able to understand, they are all in-bred throughout the country. That is one of the greatest menaces to education in Britain.

Mr. Hutchinson: The Bill will not be put an end to that system. It will still exist in county boroughs.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): We are getting a little wide of the Rulings on the Clause.

Professor Gruffydd: I was only giving an example, and I am now going to sit down. I hope that the Committee will bear in mind that the vast majority of Members who have spoken have put one point of view, but that does not mean that it is the view of the majority of the Committee or of the country.

Mr. Spearman: My right hon. Friend has shown such consideration to every reasonable criticism and constructive suggestion that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland), I hope that he will see his way to look at the Clause again. According to the present proposal, the qualification for being the education authority is the status obtained many decades ago, when population and general conditions were entirely different. It seems to me that there should be two tests: one, its record as a progressive education authority; secondly, its financial ability to carry the burden. Unlike the hon. Member who spoke earlier, I have in my constituency a Part III authority with a very fine record for progressive management of its education and it is in a very strong financial position. I realise that the Minister has chosen this rather rough and ready way of choosing education authorities in order to save time.

Mr. Butler: No, not at all. After two and a half years of close study of the problem, I have come to the conclusion that this proposal represents the best chance of getting a proper education service.

Mr. Spearman: I certainly would not criticise my right hon. Friend if that were his object. I am sure that in getting the Bill into working order at the earliest possible moment my right hon. Friend would be doing exactly what the country wants. I am not going to support any course which would make for material delay, but I suggest that there need not be much delay in having an inquiry and making the choice of educational authorities, according to the two tests I have suggested; I would remind my right hon. Friend that as a tailor made suit lasts very much longer than a ready made suit, and the money and energy spent on them are amply repaid, so a little more time spent on selecting who should be the educational authority might be amply repaid in obtaining a better administration.
I should like to refer to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), who referred to contact between the educational authority and other localities. There is a Part III authority in my constituency which will be three hours by train from the proposed education authority, if you are lucky, and you are not often lucky in these days. A journey of 160 miles in a day is a considerable deterrent to close contact. It is inevitable that there should be a lack of contact between local interests and the education authority. I am not convinced that an education authority so far distant from a town will know all the local circumstances and I suggest that there will be, under the plan, a very definite loss of local interest which I know my right hon. Friend would deplore. The distance in this particular case might be exceptional, but there are many others varying in degree. In the interests of maintaining local interests in education, I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at the Clause again.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I renew my mild protest, which I made earlier, against the incompleteness of the discussion at this early stage of the Bill. I do not know whether it is the fault of my right hon. Friend or of his predecessor. My right hon. Friend has' been two and a half years grappling with this problem, and many other problems, but this is only one of them. It was my opinion five years ago, as it is to-day, that this matter should be put before a proper inquiry. It is on record that I advocated

this procedure many years ago. We could not do it in my time, because it was bound up with a question of finance. One hopes that this might take place. The Minister without Portfolio had some say on the question. It is typical that the question of administration is held to be a matter for the Schedule, but, in education, administration is extremely important. That is my protest. The hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) talked about parochialism in the Rhondda; what about some of the counties in Wales, and in England? If he is going to tell stories about teachers born in a place going back to that place to teach, I could give him some examples of counties, as well as Part III authorities. There is nothing in that at all. There is, again, the experience of Scotland, which does not support this Measure.
When you come to local interests, which my right hon. Friend has rightly mentioned in the White Paper and in his speeches because he wants to preserve and stimulate local interest, surely there are many other ways of doing it besides through locally elected authorities. I must not go into the question of parent teacher's association and governing bodies at this stage, but I must say that we are all inhibited here, because we cannot discuss the real problem. My protest is that we have to discuss how technical or further education is to be organised, without agreement on areas. I agree with my right hon. Friend that you need large, all-purpose areas and I am going to support the Minister. It is very unfortunate that we cannot have a fuller Debate. It would help both the Minister and both sides of the Committee and I am sure that my right hon. Friend would like to have a full-dress Debate on this matter. I stand up in the name of education and say that this is not a thing which you can just put into a Schedule and say "We shall have a Part II or a Part III." There are first-class principles involved. It is a great pity that we cannot get this out of the way without having it hanging over us until the Schedules are debated. There are areas in this country which are unsuited to be all-purpose authorities, but, as my right hon. Friend and I both want a comprehensive and varied service, it has to be a reasonable size when it comes to the appointment of teachers. But do


not let us tool ourselves that by having Part II instead of Part III authorities you are going to get rid of many of the scandals—for that is what they are—about the appointment of teachers which are happening all over the country.

Sir Reginald Blair: I promised not to enter into any detail but I would like to make one observation before we pass this Clause. Like many other hon. Members who have spoken I regard this as a most vital and important Clause affecting our constituents, particularly my own. I put down Amendments the consideration of Which has been carried over to the Schedule. It seems to me that I have blotted my copybook all round in my Division, because I represent a borough which is under Part III, I represent 80,000 electors in Harrow which is not an education authority, and part of the borough of Wembley which has not been an education authority and does not want to become one. I represent a large part of the county of Middlesex in the Hendon Division. I put it to the Committee, What is a Member to do in that case? He represents three different authorities all pulling different ways. All I want to do, representing the Hendon Borough Council, is to see Hendon gain under this Education Bill rather than lose.

Mr. Hutchinson: May I suggest that the hon. Member should transfer his support to the Amendment put down in my name. He will find—

The Deputy-Chairman: We are not discussing an Amendment.

Sir R. Blair: As I was saying, I want Hendon to gain by this Education Bill rather than lose. It is true they can frame schemes in agreement with the county council, but I must tell the Committee that agreements with the county council in other forms of local government schemes are sometimes not very happy so far as Hendon is concerned. Consequently, when the Schedule is reached I shall, very probably have to support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Messer: I do not want to make a long speech. In fact there have been very few speeches opposed to the view generally expressed, because there are some of us who want to get this Bill. But I want to say, in case the Minister

should imagine that there is an overwhelming consensus of opinion against the Clause, that such a view would be wrong; There is wide support for the Clause as it stands. The hon. Member who has just sat down referred to Middlesex. In Middlesex there are non-Part III authorities who would be excepted districts and who desire the Clause. There are Part III authorities in Middlesex who desire the Clause.

Sir R. Blair: May I ask the hon. Member which of these authorities in Middlesex want the Clause?

Mr. Messer: Tottenham.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid this discussion is getting rather wide.

Mr. Messer: The area which I share the honour of representing, Tottenham, wants the Clause. I merely want to say that the Minister in drafting this Clause has not been able to look at one Part III authority or one county; he has been compelled to look over the country. This Clause does not represent what everybody who wants to see a unified method of education in this country would desire. There are some of us who believe it could be improved but we know that what we would suggest would perhaps throw the balance in the other direction. This is a happy mean and we are prepared to accept it, but if the Minister were to go very far to make concessions on this Clause he would find another fight on the other side. I think it is as well he should remember it is not just a case where the Part III authorities who want to retain their power and indeed want to add to it have got behind them the whole of public opinion. It is not true.
It has been suggested that county councils are out of touch with the people. Let us examine that proposition. If it is true, it is because the localities have elected the wrong type of people, and I am of the opinion that at times when we are criticising what is an instrument, we lose sight of the fact it is a piece of machinery, and compare it with the work done by inefficient people who, if they were on Pant III authorities would still be inefficient. Is it true to say that the small local authority is democratic but that the people who are elected from that authority area on to the county council are undemocratic. Is a county council undemocratic?

Sir J. Mellor: Could the hon. Member explain how it is possible for county councillors as a whole to know about all parts within a county? Is it not only possible for county councillors to know in detail about their own particular districts?

Mr. Messer: I do not intend to concede that. It would mean that in my own capacity as vice-chairman of a public health committee I did not know anything about the county except Tottenham. That is not true.

Mr. Gallacher: Would it not follow from the hon. Member's argument, that the hon. Member, as Member for South Tottenham, would know something about Tottenham but not about the rest of the county?

Mr. Messer: That might be logical but when the House of Commons becomes logical I become hopeless. What is the county council? It is a body of people elected from each division. Every Member of the council is elected, and if the county council is wise in the administration and delegation of its powers what it will do is to see that members drawn from these areas shall be a committee representative of those people who will keep that day to day touch which has been referred to. What is the truth about this contact with the public? It is the secondary schools that have successful parents' associations, where the county is responsible for the secondary education, not the elementary schools. There may be another reason for it but that is a fact and I am dealing with facts.
I have been addressing parents' meetings. I have heard from no one of them any criticism of the Clause as it stands. What I have heard is that if there is a certain Part III authority which gets secondary powers what is going to happen to a neighbouring authority which is a poorer authority from every point of view, admitting that there will be an equalisation of rates over the county? There is something more than finance in questin. Let us take two districts. Hendon, which is so ably represented by the hon. Member, is one of the biggest districts in Middlesex. Its next door neighbour is poverty-stricken Acton. You cannot give to Hendon an independence

that is not going to affect Acton, and if the Part III authorities are looking at their miserable selves without regard to the effect on their neighbours, then they are not acting wisely. I am standing for the highest measure of efficiency in education, not because I want to support the mandarins of the parish pump, but because I want to see the child get equality of opportunity. I. believe this Clause gives that. I do not want it to be believed that the overwhelming consensus of opinion is against the Clause.

Major Gates: I interpose only to ask one question for my own guidance. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) said just now, speaking from the Front Opposition Bench, he was speaking on behalf of his hon. Friends. My hon. Friends on this side attach great and proper importance to any pronouncement made in such a way. The hon. Member for Romford used a phrase which he attached to Part III authorities in this instance, the phrase "vested interests." It would be of great assistance to my hon. Friends and myself if he or one of his hon. Friends—I am sorry he has left the Chamber—could define what exactly he meant by attaching the phrase "vested interests" to Part III authorities. I have two in my own constituency.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: I wish to say a few words because I regard the principle in this Clause as fundamentally wrong. It is depriving hundreds of local education authorities of control of their own educational policy however efficient they may have been, and in spite of the many years which they may have taken to build up their education policy. To my mind, this principle seems to be a retrograde manner of doing things and a measure which naturally rankles in the minds of many of those authorities who have taken pride in their education administration. In my right hon. Friend's explanations I can quite understand the desire to reduce the number of authorities and to have a greater efficiency. But could this not have been done by building up on the authorities which exist all over the country, and building up on a sound principle upon the authorities which have undertaken their educational responsibilities so efficiently? By the method in this Clause


the power is taken away and is to be allowed to be delegated back in another part of the Bill. But the excepted authority such as the Borough of Cambridge is still to be subject to the financial control of the county and inevitably that means that the education policy remains subject to county control.
To my mind these excepted authorities ought to have complete control themselves, because they have the officers, they have the financial resources and they have the necessary experience. Under this Clause, as has already been mentioned, you will have the anomaly of a county borough with a population of 24,000 next door to an area with 60,000, with the county borough having complete control and the other with the bigger population having no control beyond the excepted authority control. Incidentally, you may say that it will give greater efficiency. I understand that in the borough which I represent there will be an increase of a 1s. in the £ in the rate, through the operation of this Clause. To my mind, there is an unanswerable case for the very considerable alteration of the Clause, and, although I will not oppose the Clause, because I hope that it will be altered on a further stage, I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider what has been said.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I would support the plea for reconsideration of a plan which seems to me to carry its own condemnation. Surely, it is individual effort which makes for success in all spheres of action. I would like to draw a comparison from my own experience of the value of local knowledge and individual effort, without which human endeavours will not succeed. I have spent a great part of my life working in a voluntary hospital. The voluntary hospital is a small institution, and it owes much of its success to the ardent interest of persons who know all about it and love it. I suggest that local knowledge and local interest are more important than anything that can be secured by the spreading out of responsibility and interest which seems to me likely to come from this Clause. I have no direct interest in either local or county authorities, but, on the general principle, I am sure it is better to have individual knowledge and interest than generally-spread interest. I am much more concerned to secure efficiency

than to secure democratic principles. If efficiency is secured, I would let democracy go.

Major Procter: I oppose this Clause because I feel that if it is not amended it will stop efficient local authorities carrying on one of their most important functions I represent a division which looks with apprehension on this Clause, which, if unamended, and if no attention is given to what we regard as an encroachment of the Government in local affairs will result in the filching from local authorities of functions which they have carried out very efficiently in the past. This Clause is another example of the attempt by Whitehall which we have seen more and more in the last few years to govern towns by a system of remote control. By a gradual process local authorities are having their functions taken away and transferred to bigger authorities That was done in the case of the police and fire services, and now we see the same influence at work in this Education Bill. It looks as if the war is being used as an opportunity for civil servants to take out their pet schemes, which they have filed away for years, dust them, put them into Bills, and get them passed into law without people understanding what is being done. In Lancashire we do not like to see these powers taken away from our local education authorities. We do not like it, and we want the Minister of Education to know we do not like it. Why should towns like Accrington, which, for years, have done excellent work, have their powers taken away? You are striking a grave blow at civic patriotism if you pass this Clause without amendment. Eventually, unless we say to Whitehall: "Hands off our local councils," we shall get to the position where there will be merely town halls without councillors, with only a caretaker to keep the place warm and comfortable for a local political commissar, who will govern our towns under the direction of the county and by the command of Whitehall.

The Deputy-Chairman: This is getting very far from the Clause. Quite a number of red herrings are being introduced.

Major Procter: I want to prevent one of the vital functions of my local council's being taken away from men and women who have done well, and transferred


into the hands of these remote controllers in Whitehall. For that reason I hope that the Minister, when he comes to the Schedule, will preserve the Part III educational authorities and not destroy them. Lancashire looks with pride on what they have done, and as there is great concern about this matter, I hope he trill give attention to their claims, and allow them to carry on their work in the same efficient way they have done in the past.

Mr. Messer: Is it not true that Lancashire has 16 county boroughs?

Mr. Butler: One is naturally sympathetic to those hon. Gentlemen who have with such faithfulness represented the point of view of their own constituencies. Their attitude is to be expected, because this Clause is, from their point of view, a severe one; and I understand their position. But I hope that, having taken up a certain part of this precious day and a large part of the previous day, and in view of the undertaking that their whole case can be raised again in detail on the First Schedule, they will now let us have the Clause, although I have no desire to limit discussion or to prevent them having an opportunity of looking into these matters. There has been an opportunity, however, to-day to hear the views of a great many Members, whose seats I have before me on the list, on the difficulties of typical authorities who are, in their view, going to be hurt by this Clause. [Interruption.] I think I know where most hon. Gentlemen sit for, and I have in many cases investigated the position in their areas on the spot. Unlike the previous approach to this problem, I have, with the Parliamentary Secretary, visited the main areas in England where this problem, exists, and I have held public meetings with the representatives of those authorities, and those who thought they were going to be decapitated have had every opportunity of discussing the question of their execution in their own districts on the spot. I hope it will be realised that in this matter we are perfectly sincere and that we do not want to do violence to anyone if we can help it.
There are at present a great many local education authorities, 169 of which are responsible only for elementary education. Under this new Bill, with its definitions of education completely recast, with its

conception of a national system ranging from the age of two, up to the age of 18, and with a definition of secondary education which takes in a portion of the present elementary field, it is vital to consider first who shall be the education authorities and what shall be the range of their duties. In doing that, we have come to the conclusion that the plan set out in this Bill is likely on the whole to be most fair and most efficient in work-mg. Our desire is to produce an educational plan that will work. I think there is a general idea in the Committee—and I do not want to take any unfair advantage—that it is quite impossible for these Part III authorities to undertake the wide range of duties set out in this Bill. In the previous Bills of 1896 and 1902 there was great interest in Parliament in this matter. In 1902 a concession was made to non-county boroughs with a population of over 10,000, accprding to the census of 1901. That was partly due to the pressure to which the Minister of Education of that day, who happened to be the Prime Minister, was subjected. Much as I sympathise with the difficulties of Part III authorities, I must place before myself a a criterion the interests of the children. If I tread on any corns, or upset any of my friends who are so sympathetic themselves to education, it is not due to my desire to take away any of their powers or to upset them in any way; it is-in the interests of the Bill as a whole.
The Committee have had an opportunity of considering this matter quite fairly. I hope they will let us have this Clause. When the Clause is passed, as it will be, by the Committee, there will be an opportunity for dealing with all the matters raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), who has such special knowledge of the matter on the Schedule. As I said the other day, and as has been said again, if it is necessary to review the whole matter on the Schedule, we shall have to do so, because it is quite clear that if hon. Gentlemen succeed in making any substantial changes in the Schedule it will be necessary for us to consider how that affects the Clause. But I hope that hon. Members will not imagine that we are going to have limitless and unending discussions on this matter, because we have so much else to do. Subject to that warning, I hope they will


consider that they are being treated quite fairly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nor-wich (Sir G. Shakespeare) raised the point of the difficulty of an excepted district in having its officers available. My answer to that is that, as I explained on the last Sitting Day, under subsection (2) of Clause 99 of the Bill, the Minister has power to accelerate the operation of Part II. That would enable him to take any necessary action to deal with this question of the officers. If the hon. Member will discuss the matter with me, I will explain to him in greater detail how that point which he has in mind is met.

Sir G. Shakespeare: Can the Minister describe how the new authorities will come under the new county authority?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Baronet will read Clause 99 (2) he will see that the Minister, in the exercise of his powers—

The Deputy-Chairman: I should warn the Minister and the Committee that we ought not to go into Clause 99 (2) now.

Mr. Butler: I should prefer to leave the matter, but, as the point was put and admitted by the Chair, I thought it my duty to answer it.
Dealing with the point raised by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), who asked about the transfer of officers, and raised the question as to whether they might not necessarily be engaged on certain duties, my answer to that is that, in order to preserve the continuity of service of these officers, their service is to be secured in the way the Bill suggests, and, after transfer, they could be put on other duties, or, to take the most pessimistic view, they could be dismissed, but if any-one did suffer in that way they would be eligible for compensation under the terms of the Bill. The real answer to the point is that they could be used upon other duties.
In concluding this discussion, I must say a few words on the question of local patriotism. One might imagine from the picture presented by the most patriotic of all local patriots, that their education ex-perts, many of whom have devoted lifelong service to the children, would motor in-credible distances to some remote county capital, where the whole administration would be carried on at one focal point. That is a totally wrong impression of what we are proposing to do. What we have in mind is that, as was put forward by

the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker), we want a large catchment area for children and one for teachers, and for which we hope to provide a proper range of education. We shall have authorities of large and variable size, but that does not mean that we wish to deprive such experts in education as are represented by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) of the oportunity of looking after their own children. Our desire is that there shall be set up within the framework of these counties, and also subject to the considerations put forward by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker), such new machinery as will preserve local interest. When I am told by hon. Members that things are to be taken away from these Part III areas, my answer is that a great deal more is going to be put upon them. These authorities exist at the moment to administer elementary education, but, under the terms of this Bill, it may well be that the whole range of education, especially in the primary and secondary spheres is delegated to them, and, therefore, far from removing responsibility from local experts, it is our wish to impose new duties and responsibilities upon them. That is the answer to those who imagine that we are rapacious and unkind. I attach great importance to the continuation of local interest. Without local interest, you cannot look after local children. I, therefore, hope that the Committee will not be so craven at this stage as to imagine that we cannot build up something new and valuable in the sphere of local Government. There is nothing in this Bill to alter the general structure of local government as a whole. What we are doing is to reassign certain educational functions, and, surely, it is a sad attitude to adopt at the outset of a great Bill if we are to feel that we have not the wit and the wisdom to invent, under the machinery of Schedule I, a proper individual life for our areas, and I invite hon. Members to help me to make that machinery better than it is.

Mr. Hutchinson: Will the Minister say something about the position of those authorities which will not be excepted districts under the Bill?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I think that is just what we cannot do.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Stages and purposes of statutory system of education.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 4, line 26, to leave out "three" and insert "four."
I do so to call attention to what I think is a grave omission from the Bill—the necessary arrangements for the children who, at present, attend nursery schools or infant schools. It is rather an astounding fact, I think, that the infant schools are not mentioned in this Bill at all, particularly when we look at the White Paper to find what the opinion of the Board is on the present infants' schools arrangements. In the White Paper, for instance, it says:
Many of the infants' schools are among the most successful of the publicly provided schools
and then, in another passage, it says:
It is generally accepted that there should be separate schools for infants and juniors respectively.
Then, when we come to the definition in the Bill for the provision of junior pupils, we find that junior pupils are to comprise all children under the age of 12. Again, with regard to nursery schools, these, so far as the Bill is concerned, are regarded as being outside the normal provision for children. They were excluded from the categories of county or auxiliary schools, and are specifically included with the special schools for mentally and physically defective children. This is, I think, an altogether inadequate provision for what is a definitely distinct step in the education of the child, and I am certain that all people who have experience in the education of younger children will say that the period of from two to seven years is a definitely preparatory stage, for which separate provision should be made by the local education authorities.
Under the arrangements which are here contemplated in the Bill, I feel there is a very grave danger that those who have been hitherto regarded as infants in the separate establishments between the ages of five and seven, will find themselves merged into that general primary arrangement and mixed with the children of from seven to eleven. I also want to say, from many years' experience in elementary schools, that this break at five years of age is not a real psychological break in the child's development. It is merely an arbitrary break introduced into our legislation

as a period of compulsory attendance and has nothing to do with educational development at all. I am certain that those who have given the greatest study to this matter would agree that the result of the psychological work which has been done in the last 25 years is to determine that this period, which is an all important one in settling the development of the future adult, is really a separate period in the child's development. The technique which has been worked out for dealing with the children in infant schools and nursery schools has been a result of a scientific and psychological approach to child development, and I feel it would be a disastrous thing if the benefits of that were lost merely in order to get a merger of these two types of school.
Moreover, I would say that this preparatory stage is an essential thing for the children who first attend school at the age of five, because children of that age are not physically capable of taking their stand in the general 7–11 school, and particularly in the case of those who come first to school at the age of five from single-child families. There is a period which is essential in their education for their adaptation to the communal surroundings of the school and their general fitting-in with its activities.
Even as far as the nursery schools are concerned, I am appalled at the sort of decision which the Board seems to have made that the natural thing is to separate the nursery school from the infants' school to make one period of 2–5 years and then another period a little later. I feel that this fatal mistake is quite clearly shown and demonstrated in the Bill, when it says that nursery schools are to be classified with special schools and that nursery schools are not to be regarded as a part of the normal provision. They are not, so far as adequate and full details are concerned, to be included in the development plan. There are no provisions made for adequate and proper boards of managers or governing bodies to look after the interests of the children in nursery schools, and they are left without guarantee so far as the standards, either, of building or of staffing, are concerned.
In the White Paper, it seemed that the Board was of opinion that the separate nursery schools would give a more suitable environment to smaller children as


well as being nearer to the homes of their parents. That seems to imply that the infant school does not need that very natural environment, but, as I have said, the infants' schools have provided the greatest development in our system of education and have been the most hopeful places so far as the rearing and training of the young are concerned, and certainly the majority of the worth-while educational reforms in recent years have had their origin in the infants' school practice. At the same time, the claim for the nursery schools, that they may be nearer to the homes, has in it a greater drawback than advantage. I want to say that, from the point of view of the parents themselves, I think there is a great advantage in combining nursery school provision with the infant school provision.
I can imagine that there will be a great trial for many mothers in some of our areas who have two small children, one under the age of five and one just over, who have to be taken to school in the mornings—and so many of them feel it is essential to take them to school—and who have to make the choice, if the nursery school is in one direction and the infants' school in another, of doing this double journey four times a day. I am certain that, as soon as the attendance of the children over five is compulsory under the law, the one neglected, the one who will suffer and not receive the benefits of the nursery school provision, will be the child under five. There may be a great danger of the provision of small, separate nursery schools near to the people's homes resulting in a very inferior type of service. If we are to have a number of small, poky buildings in back streets, and call them nursery schools, we are not going to get the same benefit out of them as we should out of spacious nursery wings and the wide open spaces associated with a modern infant school.
The effect of trying to make small nursery schools near to homes will result, almost inevitably, in an unqualified staff, mad certainly in the absence of the assistance of a really experienced headmistress, while at the same time it will cause a very harmful and unnecessary psychological break in the child's development. These are not just mere idle fears. When I come to analyse the White Paper I find that, while it is discussing the question of the difficulty of raising the school-leaving

age until 18 months after the end of the war, it is stated that one of the reasons for that difficulty is, that there will not be sufficient additional teaching staff available. In the very next paragraph I find these words:
On the other hand, the expansion of nursery schools will not present the same difficulties.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that there will not be the same necessity in the nursery school for qualified members of the staff, which means in reality that they will only become baby minding institutions and not schools at all. In the Financial Memorandum which precedes the Bill it is said that little could be done in the first year or two after 1st April, 1945, in the way of new school buildings, because local authorities will be making plans and acquiring sites and the rate of development will depend upon the availability of building labour and materials. In the very next sentence it says:
There will, however, be a relatively substantial early expansion of nursery schools which do not present the same difficulties of accommodation.
The standards of nursery schools are designedly and deliberately inferior to the standards of the primary school. The last really disturbing thing is that even the inadequately staffed and equipped provision that was contemplated in the White Paper has, on second thoughts, been considered too good as far as the nursery school provision is concerned, for the Financial Memorandum reveals that the ultimate cost of the nursery school system—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am very reluctant to have to interrupt the hon. Member but he has covered a very considerable number of points which are likely to come up on other occasions on the Bill, and in discussing this Amendment I ought to warn the Committee that, if the discussion covers too many points, it will inevitably cut out other Amendments later.

Mr. Cove: That thought was passing through my mind as my hon. Friend was speaking. As far as I gather from his speech there are a number of us who are sympathetic to his point of view and to the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd Georģe)—in page 4, line 41,


after "of" insert "infant and"—and the Amendment which I have myself put down—in line 42, after "of," insert "infants and"—express what my hon. Friend desires. If this discussion ranges over a wide area, shall we have an opportunity on our Amendments of getting a decision from the Committee? Some of us are very keen about this, and it may be that the Minister, in his reply, will not satisfy us. We might, therefore, want to divide the Committee. From opinion outside, I find very great interest in it and a very keen desire to preserve intact all education up to the age of seven. I would like to know from the Chair whether we shall now have an opportunity of discussing the matter.

The Deputy-Chairman: Possibly I can relieve the hon. Gentleman's mind on the Amendment of the hon. Lady the Member for. Anglesey (Miss Lloyd Georģe). It is not necessary, as it is already covered, and so we need not have any worry about it.

Sir Percy Harris: My hon. Friends and I attach a great deal of importance to the word "infant," which does not come into the Bill in any part of any Clause. "Nursery school" is a different thing, and as education is organised at present there are infant schools with separate head teachers. We want it to be made clear whether the infant school is to remain part of the educational organisation or whether it is to disappear. That is why we are so anxious that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd Georģe) shall be discussed.

The Deputy-Chairman: That may be raised when the time comes. I do not think that it comes in at the present time.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will you tell the Committee, Mr. Williams, whether you are allowing us to discuss this and the following Amendment—after "as" to insert "preparatory education"—together?

The Deputy-Chairman: The first two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key), who is moving the present Amendment, stand together.

Mr. Key: I have almost finished. The point that I want to stress is not really

that we want infant schools or nursery schools but that this provision should be regarded as a preparatory stage in the system of education for which we are now making provision and that it would be entirely wrong to make a break at the age of five, because five is not the correct time for the change to be made. The provision that should be made should not be with the idea of saying that we can have charity schools set up as nursery schools or any other sort of organisation taking charge of nursery schools, and that the national provision for education is only to begin at the age of five. I will finish by quoting the opinion of one whose opinion should be followed in this matter, the late Principal of the Avery Hill Training College, who sums up the position in this way:
Our aim should be to have preparatory schools for children aged two to seven where nurture is combined with education throughout. Nursery schools have demonstrated a way of life that combines nurture and education, but only for children up to five. Nursery classes have introduced this way of life for children under five in infant schools. Nursery classes represent the transition stage with all its drawbacks but the influence of the nursery class must in time inevitably modify the arrangement throughout the whole of the infant school. The nurture provided for the children aged three and four cannot for long be denied the children aged five and six, who are in the adjoining classes.
That, from one of great experience, is convincing evidence of the necessity of making such provision in the new scheme of education of which the Bill is to be the instrument, and that that preparatory stage shall have its position, together with the primary, secondary and continued education, as a stage for which local authorities must make adequate and proper provision.

Mr. Harvey: I hope very much that the Minister may be willing to accept the Amendment. It really marks a very notable stage of advance in our conception of education. We are all grateful to the Minister for the big advance that has been made with regard to the national provision of nursery schools, but it would be incomplete if he did not recognise in the structure of the Bill the points that have been made with such knowledge by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key). The preparatory stage of education is a stage apart in so far as we can separate the whole continuous process of education into parts. Great emphasis is necessarily


laid in this stage on the formation of habits and on cultivating a sense of community, of the way of living together, of the gifts of character which get the opportunity of development in the nursery school and in the earliest stage of preparatory education. Education at that stage is necessarily less formal. Children in these schools spend a certain amount of time sleeping. It is well that they should. That is not usually considered education, but it is a very necessary part of the early stage of physical development in the case of these children.
It is of great importance that the transition from the earliest stages of the nursery school to the later stages in the infant school should be made as easy and as elastic as possible. From that point of view it is very desirable that the age of seven should mark the period of transition rather than the age of five. Although no arbitrary age limit can be fixed as the time when the child will inevitably pass from one to the other stage those who have studied this most intimately and who have the most practical experience are united in agreeing that the age of five is not the true age at which to mark the transition from one period to another. Therefore, I hope very much that the Minister will be willing to accept the Amendment, thus marking in the structure of the Bill the importance which I am sure the Board of Education places upon the preparatory period of education and its distinctive characteristics.

Dr. Edith Sunmerskill: I want to support what has already been so admirably expressed by the mover of this Amendment. It is difficult to understand why this new system of education has been divided into three stages, primary, secondary and further education, and the preparatory stage has been absolutely neglected. I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that the inclusion of the two to fives in the new system of education is probably the most revolutionary part of the Bill and yet we are neglecting it in this Clause; we are going to treat it, as far as I can see, as an afterthought. The psychologists say that our characters are formed before the age of seven, and I think it is right that those curious things known as complexes and inhibitions are instilled before the age of seven. So I want the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider

this matter and to treat the preparatory stage as one which is of equal importance with the primary and secondary stages in education.
I am anxious that emphasis should be laid on it for this reason also. We do not want mothers, when they come to consider these new proposals, to look upon the training which the two to fives will receive in our schools as the type of training they might receive in a superior crèche. We do not want the mothers of the country to think "Other women who have two to fives who are not being brought up in a proper manner, should certainly send their children to school, but my child is in a home where it does not need this particular training." That is the wrong approach. Unless, however, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister decide to put more emphasis on the preparatory stage, this will be the interpretation of mothers of small children in the country. I also want to support what the mover of the Amendment said about the ages which should be included in the preparatory stage. Not only the two to fives should have this particular training but the five to sevens should also be included.

Mr. Morgan: Is the hon. Lady advocating compulsory nursery schools?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly not. I should like to advocate it, but I have not mentioned compulsion. I am accepting the provisions of this Bill and this is a voluntary measure entirely. But surely, if we are going to offer this provision, we should explain to the country the kind of training that the children should have. Later on it may become compulsory, but I am quite satisfied with the first step. I am a little apprehensive lest the five to sevens will not obtain the same benefits as the two to fives.

The Deputy-Chairman: Again I regret having to interrupt, but there is on the Paper an Amendment in the names of the hon. Members for Bradford Central (Mr. Leach) and Park Division, Sheffield (Mr. Burden) which raises the whole question of the five to sevens, and if we discuss it here, we shall not be able to do it there.

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, Mr. Williams, I bow to your decision. But may I emphasise that I do want the Parliamentary Secretary to amend Clause 7


and to describe the four stages of the system, including the preparatory stage.

Sir P. Harris: I believe there should be four stages instead of three, for the very sane reason given by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key) who desires to preserve one of the finest things in our educational system which has been the admiration of the world, the infants' school. We shall be discussing the infants' school, I assume, on the next Clause but in his desire for uniformity the Minister is giving a wrong impression to those devoted women who have dedicated their lives to the work of the infants' schools. That would be nothing short of tragedy. Under the reorganisation scheme, in the London area there would be three stages—infants' schools, the junior school, and the senior school. Now we understand the infants' school is to be squeezed out and merged into the primary organisation. That would be to undermine all the work carried out during the last century.
The danger we see is that in agreeing that the excellent institution, the nursery school, should be organised right throughout this country, the infants' school may disappear. I do hope we can have an assurance that this is not going to happen. If there is any danger of it, I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division. When I was in Germany studying education many years ago, one thing I noticed was that what we call "infants"—the stage from five to seven—were mixed up in the ordinary primary school and heavy Prussian gentlemen were attempting to teach small children from five to seven. That is the kind of thing we do not want in this country. Therefore, it is important that we should have some guarantee that the machinery of education which this Bill is going to build up will include, not merely infants' classes, but proper infants' schools, with special teachers and a special syllabus—based on the Froebel idea and all those delightful experiments which have been the admiration of everybody who has seen our schools at work. There has been much criticism of the junior schools—that comes out in various reports such as the Hadow Report—but there has been nothing but admiration for the infants' schools. I want to see that the organisation is such that it will be possible to secure as part

of our educational system the excellent institutions known as the infants' schools.

Sir Harold Webbe: I hope very much that the Minister will not accept this Amendment. The argument put forward by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key) can only be valid and have full effect if one contemplates what was said by the hon Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) who, quite frankly, said she would desire the lowering of the school age to two. Apart from that, there can be no merit whatever in specifying a separate stage of preparatory education. I do not at all share the fears of the right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). I, too, attach the greatest importance to the maintenance of our excellent infants' schools in their present very advanced stage of development. I believe the infants' schools have developed more over the last 40 or 50 years than any other section of our education, and that they are the best of their kind in the whole educational system. It is because I am anxious that these excellent schools should not be spoiled, that I deprecate strongly linking them with the nursery schools in the way in which the mover of this Amendment has done.
I am old-fashioned enough to believe that the training given in the nursery schools in ideal conditions should certainly be given not in a school at all but in the home. But I am quite aware that, in many cases, home conditions do not permit of this training being given as we should desire. Where those conditions obtain, then we must have recourse to the second best of either nursery schools or nursery classes, but in my personal view it is definitely a second best with the school usurping the place of the parent.
I am afraid my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will get into trouble if ever he tries to do anything good. The provision in his Bill for the development of nursery schools and nursery classes is excellent. It gives us hope of the development of something which, in our social and economic condition, is a necessity. But immediately that concession is made in the Bill, he is at once driven by the educationists—and Heaven forbid that I should ever be one of those—to the idea of a school age of two. If he ventured to go much further along the road, the school


age would be nought, because we have exactly the same argument every time, both about the age for beginning education and the age for finishing it. It is, invariably, in the view of the educationist, the year before the child goes to school, whatever age you fix, and the year after he leaves, whatever age you fix, which is the critical one in his period of development. I hope sincerely that this Amendment will be resisted. It will give the impression that Parliament wants to rope in to the school system children of two years of age throughout the country.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Young): I do not think there is anything here about children of two years of age.

Sir H. Webbe: I was only following the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and by the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham. They based the whole of their arguments for this period upon a linking up of the nursery school provision from two to five with that of the infant school from five to seven.

The Temporary Chairman: But the question is whether it is to be four instead of three, and whether the words "preparatory education" should be added. I understand that the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) was answering an interruption from the other side of the Committee.

Sir H. Webbe: I must leave it to the Committee to say whether I have heard the hon. Lady aright, but I am protesting against this introduction of what is called a fourth stage of education, and I do so on the grounds I have tried to make clear.

Mr. Cove: I have risen to try to point out that we have not got at the real heart of the problem. There is no fear existing that infants' schools will be swallowed up by nursery schools. The difficulty, and the fear, is that the infants' school will be swallowed up in the junior school. I am in touch with a large number of teachers and administrators of education and there is a genuine fear that the infants' schools will be swallowed up in the junior schools. That is that the infant school will suffer from the downward thrust of the junior school. May I put it this way? There is the fear that the man who is the head of the junior school will intrude into the sphere of the infant and nursery

schools, where a woman is the better fitted person. I am not an expert in educationist methods and psychology and things of that kind, but it is generally true that the greatest contribution made to the British educational system during the last 10 to 20 years has come out of the treatment of our very young children in infants' schools. It would be a tragedy if that were lost.
I know the difficulty of this matter. When schools have been reorganised and younger children have gone into the junior schools there has been a tendency to have the pressure of examinations at 11 years of age thrusting itself downwards into the methods of the school. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The hon. Member must not tell me that, because I know. I have had experience, and it is useless for him to tell me that. I want to keep young children free from the incubus of examinations. I want them to have a free play life. It is the plain and natural method of the young child I want to see if he is to have a chance. I want to keep children of seven out of the claws of the examiners. I know there can be resiliency in the organisation. We do not mind whether they are nursery schools or infant schools, and so on, but let us have a chance in this free play area to carry out what we have already started. There is great difficulty about the Amendment, but I want the Committee to come to some decision. It is vitally important in the interests of our education that we should preserve our young children from all the pressure that comes afterwards. Margaret MacMillan's great experiment ought to be carried out in the State schools. Where I differ from the hon. Member opposite is that I do not want State compulsion for children of two years of age.

Mr. Astor: If the hon. Member is referring to me he is quite wrong, because I agree with him.

Mr. Cove: No, I was not referring to the hon. Member. I do not want State compulsion for children from two to seven, but I do want the State to be directly interested in this sphere of education—and I leave out all private venture or merely the assistance of the State as a private venture. I believe the State should come in much more and should safeguard the lives of these growing children, and not allow pressure from the


top to squeeze their lives into the rut of the examination system.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr Ede): My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key), who moved this Amendment, ranged over a wide area of the educational field, and to reply to all the points he raised would involve a reply to all the Amendments on the Order Paper which deal with the next three Clauses. I cannot hope, Sir Robert, that you would allow me to do that. I hope the Committee realise that this is a declaratory Clause and that it endeavours to set out for the first time the conception that education is a continuous process. We have now arrived, by fairly general consent in the country, at what is the boundary line in age as between the primary and secondary stage. The magic phrase "11 plus" seems to command fairly general assent. But we have no such consensus of agreement as to the point at which the preparatory stage should pass into the primary stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley has an Amendment, which is linked up with this Clause, on the next Clause, which would limit preparatory education to full-time education suitable to the requirements of infant pupils and pupils who have not attained the age of five. There is a great volume of opinion in the country which holds that the proper age for the end of that stage would be seven years. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford Central (Mr. Leach) has an Amendment down to effect that, and, quite clearly, there is a very wide range of difference on that first point.
We now come to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), namely, that there is considerable doubt—to put it no higher than that—as to whether the proper place for a child in the five to seven group is in the infant school or in a junior school that has a range from five to eleven. The point of view of the Government, as expressed in the White Paper, was paraphrased by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley, but it is necessary to point out the actual words, because they are one of the limiting factors in development along these lines. The White Paper stated:

It is generally accepted that wherever numbers make it possible there should be separate schools for infants and juniors respectively.
That is the view of His Majesty's Government, and we stand by that. The fact that the word "infant" does not appear in the Bill is not peculiar to this Bill, because it cannot be found in the Act of 1921 under which we are now working. This is a question of the organisation of schools after the system has been determined. We believe that, where numbers make it possible, there should be a separate infants' department for those children of compulsory school age who are under their seventh birthday. It means, in general, that they stay in these schools until they are about 7½. We accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and others said regarding the valuable work done in recent years in infant schools. I recollect that my first job as a member of the National Union of Teachers was to agitate in my own county that infant school teachers should be paid as much as girls' school teachers. No one would suggest to-day that infant school teachers are in any way inferior to girls' school teachers or that their job is not in every way equivalent. We have, I think, generally recognised that what has been said in favour of infants' departments is justified.
It is quite clear that any effort to define the upper range of the so-called preparatory department would involve us in a controversy with regard to which the bitterness of the Part III controversy would be quite mild. The differences between the advocates of the two to five nursery school and the two to seven nursery school are so acute that it is as well for mere man to keep out of them. I have had to meet deputations of people who have advocated both methods, but I have never yet attempted to meet the two deputations simultaneously. We have given very careful consideration to this question of the stages. We must realise that some words are used in this Bill in a way that they have not been used hitherto. It is true that, up to the present, junior means seven to eleven, but from the definition Clause of this Bill junior means a pupil who has not attained the age of 12. Therefore, the phrase "junior pupil" as set out in one of the Clauses, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley referred, has a far different meaning


from that which is commonly used at the present time. My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that in a later Clause of the Bill we have exempted nursery schools and special schools from coming into the category of county and auxiliary schools. We did that for this simple reason: We did not want to extend all the disorders and terrors of the dual system into the nursery school.

Mr. Lindsay: Could my hon. Friend deal with the management question?

Mr. Ede: Yes, it is quite clear that we did not want to have the stereotyped form of management which the 40 years' working of the 1902 Act has imposed on us with regard to the provided and non-provided schools of the country. These schools are experimental; very many valuable experiments are being carried on in them at the present time. To attempt at this stage to stereotype the experiment and limit it by attempting to decide whether five or seven will ultimately be the right age at which the preparatory stage should end and the primary stage should begin, would be a disaster to one of the freest movements going on in the country at the moment. I hope the Committee will agree that three stages will represent the real view of education as it will be practised. I hope they will feel that we must have elasticity in the system to allow any development from five to seven to occur. Perhaps our successors at some future date will be able to decide which is the appropriate age at which the preparatory stage should end.

Mr. Woods: I have listened with considerable interest to the Parliamentary Secretary's speech. I was waiting for strong arguments as to why the Amendment should be resisted, and although I agreed with a good deal of what he said I did not hear one such argument. He said the Clause was declaratory. If that is so, why not recognise that there is a stage of education which can only be properly called preparatory?
If the Government would accept this Amendment and agree to recognise that, then there would be more likelihood of some wider and subsequent statement elaborating our experience. There could have been provided in this Bill a much more definite experimentation. The whole idea of compulsion being applied is, in my

view, right outside the question. The arguments that have been used against this with regard to the home being the proper place seem to me to avoid entirely the actual experience in working-class homes to-day. In many homes nowadays there is just one child, and the education of that child is achieved very largely by contact, intercourse and fellowship with other children, and I think a large percentage of people to-day suffer from the effects of loneliness in infancy. It is obvious, as the Parliamentary Secretary and the Committee know, that if these nursery schools are going to be worth while it is no good just adapting any old building and getting any person there.
With all due respect, my contention is that nothing would be lost and a good deal would be gained if the Government accepted the insertion of the words "preparatory education," and then they would be justified in making the necessary revisions within that so that the experiment could take place. With regard to the desire expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary that nursery schools should not become involved, I think the whole Committee heartily agree and endorse that. As I see the problem of education, one thing we have to avoid is the putting of additional expense upon those parents who have families. We should go out of our way to make every provision to see that their children have from earliest infancy the fullest facilities for a first-class education.

Mr. Lindsay: I only want to ask my hon. Friend one question. Could he be a little conciliatory—I do not think this is worth a Division but there is a very big issue coming up on a later Amendment—and give us a statement as to whether we are dealing with children aged two to seven? Many of us, both inside and outside the House, feel that there should be flexibility between the ages of two and seven. There are something like 1,500,000 children in this category, half a million aged five and another half million aged six and the remainder in nursery schools and classes. We do not want all of them to be in nursery or all in infant schools. Each area has different problems, rural and urban.

Mr. Ede: I am anxious to be conciliatory to my hon. Friend. I had hoped that I had made it quite clear that we


were resisting this Amendment so as to retain flexibility. Nobody knows better than the hon. Member himself of the great war going on between the two-to-five and the two-to-seven protagonists, and while he wants, apparently, to retain flexibility from two to seven and regards that as the preparatory stage, there are other people with experience in education equal to his own, neither greater nor less, who hold the other view. Quite clearly, when the matter is still very fluid and when no one can say a decision has been reached it would be wrong of the Government to attempt to put the whole education system into a strait-jacket and say the preparatory stage ended at either five or seven. What my Friend the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) said will be answered when we come to the next Clause. What I have really been asked to do by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key) is to give a Second Reading exposition of the next three Clauses of the Bill. That, clearly, is impossible on this Amendment. We desire flexibility and we think the best way of securing flexibility is not at this stage to introduce a particular limit which is, at the moment, the subject of the most violent controversy.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I think before we allow this Clause to leave the Committee there are one or two points we should refer to or get further enlightenment upon. The Parliamentary Secretary has, just stated that this Clause is merely declaratory. I think it is rather more than declaratory, yet not sufficiently definitive, for if one reads the terms of the Clause it definitely puts a special responsibility on local authorities. It charges them with the moral, mental and physical development of the community. That is a very tall order, and I am not even sure that they are in a position to be so charged or made responsible for the moral, mental and physical development of the community. Such development does not depend on education alone. It depends upon the housing authorities to a large extent, and if this is going to be carried out according to the declaration it will mean that the education authorities and the housing

authorities will have to work in close contact. There are one or two points which my hon. Friend has not made clear enough to the local authorities. In the preliminary stage of education which is mentioned in this Clause local authorities will be responsible for denominational teaching. I am not sure that it would not be better to ignore denominational teaching in the preliminary stage and simply concentrate on the Christian virtues.

The Temporary Chairman: Would the hon. and gallant Member discuss only what is in the Clause?

Sir T. Moore: That is just what I thought I was doing. May I again quote the words "moral, mental and physical development"?

The Temporary Chairman: I cannot allow the time of the Committee to be taken up in a discussion of this sort. We should be here all day.

Sir T. Moore: It rather cramps one's views and responsibility to pass a Clause like this, because obviously the local authorities, as I said at the beginning, are charged with a very serious and wide scope of duties, and there is nothing in the Clause which goes beyond the declaration that they are so charged. My view is that the Clause should contain something more definitive as to how the local authorities—

The Temporary Chairman: The Committee has not amended it, so the question that the Clause stands part has been put, and we must discuss it as it is.

Sir T. Moore: I think my hon. colleagues have failed considerably in their duty, and I am merely trying to make good their omissions. However, I am not quite clear as to whether the question of the local authorities having been sufficiently guided by the Minister in regard to securing teachers of the necessary quality would come under your Ruling, because that, to my mind, is an important point.

The Temporary Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman must be advised that he cannot pursue that point. We have now discussed the matter and he should remember that when the Clause comes to be discussed as a whole we are very


largely in the same position in relation to the Clause as we are when we read a Bill the Third time. We must discuss what is in the Clause or Bill.

Sir T. Moore: Far be it from me to handicap the great efforts that my right hon. Friend is making towards getting this Bill through with such good will, and it is strongly against my better judgment to prevent this by standing on this Clause, and therefore, while retaining to myself full authority to bring in any such Amendment at a later stage as may appear to make good the Clause as it may stand, I will for the moment resume my seat.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Duty of local education authorities to secure provision of primary and secondary schools.)

Mr. Clement Davies: On a point of Order. Do I understand you are not calling the Amendment which stands in my name? May I know why that has been passed?

The Temporary Chairman: The Financial Resolution does not permit the hon. and learned Gentleman to move it.

Mr. Davies: May I make a respectful submission? Looking at Clause 1, the purpose of the Bill is to provide education on a national basis, and it divides the duties between the Minister and the local authorities. Then Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 set up the machinery. Clause 8 provides for the extensive duty of local education authorities to provide sufficient schools in their areas. I think I should be in Order in saying that this is a duty which they cannot discharge and which ought to be discharged by the Minister.

Mr. Lindsay: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, after "pupils," to insert:
including provision for children who have attained the age of two years by the provision of nursery schools or, where the authority consider the provision of such schools to be inexpedient, by the provision of nursery classes in other schools.
On page 5 there are a number of instructions which have to be taken into account. For instance, there is the need for securing that primary and secondary education are provided for in separate schools, the need for special schools.
Among these I find the provision for nursery schools. That seemed to me to put nursery provision in the wrong order. Ii this is part of primary education, as the Parliamentary Secretary has told us, this seems to me the right place to insert the provision of nursery schools. If the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) wishes to amend this, or if others wish to leave out "inexpedient," I have no objection. I should like the whole Debate to take place at this point; it is of vital importance, and I have the full support of the Association of Education Committees and the Nursery Schools Association in wishing this to be placed in (a) rather than treated as one of the things to which you have regard later on in the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman's eloquent remarks in the White Paper have convinced many people that there is a real place in the educational system for nursery schools. In Bradford for many years they have gone up to the age of seven, and there are most interesting developments there. On the other hand, the general feeling is that we should like to see a flexible system between two and seven. In some cases the children will go at three, in others at four. This is all experimental but it is an integral part of primary education, and therefore it seems quite wrong to see it in this subsidiary section. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept this simple Amendment, because it has very strong backing.

Mr. Ede: This is really transposing Clause 8 (2) (b) into 8 (1) (a). Paragraphs (a) and (b) really have to be read together. Paragraph (a) deals with the whole of primary education and (b) deals with the whole of secondary education. I think there is no doubt, after the former discussion, that the provision of nursery schools is a part of primary education. The Board are fully seized of the desire of the country that it should be expanded, but it does not appear that any substantial gain is made bring bringing it into 8 (1) (a) and leaving it out of 8 (2) (b). Clause 8 (2) sets out the various things to which a local educational authority will have to have regard when drafting their development plans, and so on. That is really the proper place for the detailed provision to be.

Amendment negatived.

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Lindsay.

Mr. Cove: May I ask why the Committee is not being allowed to make a decision on the Amendment in my name and that in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd Georģe) to the same effect?

The Temporary Chairman: We cannot go back now.

Mr. Cove: My Amendment in line 42, after "of" to insert "infants and", follows that which has just been discussed and we are very keen about it. The Committee has been denied a chance of voting on this. I understood when the Debate was proceeding that we might have had a chance of registering a decision at this part of the Bill on whether infants should be included. I imagine it would be better in the interests of getting the Bill through that we should have an opportunity of raising the issue.

The Temporary Chairman: I understood the hon. Member to be rising to a point of Order. I think he is making a speech

Mr. Cove: Someone is tricking us.

The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Member will wait for an explanation, I will give it. I understand there has been a mistake in the printing and there is no word "of" in line 42. In the circumstances, the Amendment cannot be called.

Mr. Cove: I want the Committee to have an opportunity of registering a decision on whether it is in favour of having infants included as a category, and that opportunity is not being given. We cannot slide off with the able speech of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Butler: Perhaps I can help the Committee. I am astonished at the example of heat that has been engendered, because the Government are as desirous of considering this question—

The Temporary Chairman: That is out of Order. There is no question before the Committee. Mr. Lindsay.

Mr. Lindsay: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, after "in," to insert "staffing."
I thought the point of the Clause was to get the scope of those who might be brought within primary and secondary education. I do not feel at all satisfied. Number and character are obviously important in schools, but many attempts

have been made by various Members to insert provisions for the size of schools and for staffing. This is only one more attempt to get the Bill to face up to the question of the size of schools and staffing. Other Amendments will follow bringing this down to much more concrete language—30 in a class or whatever it may be. That being so, the word "staffing" is as important as "character" or "number." Probably the most vital part is the numbers in the classes and the quality of the teachers. If you have to have regard to staffing as well as character and number, it seems a reasonable and an obvious Amendment.

Mr. Ede: This is an attempt to insert the problem of staffing into this part of the Clause, which is dealing with number, character and equipment—all physical characteristics of the school. It is true that we shall have, at some stage or other, to deal with the question of the supply of teachers and the size of the classes. There are a number of Amendments to a later Clause which deal with that, and clearly it would not be right to put this question of personnel into a part of the Clause which is dealing with physical requirements, the numbers of the schools and their character and equipment.

Amendment negatived.

Admiral Sir William James: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, after "equipment," to insert:
including adequate playing grounds and fields.
This Amendment will cause no heat. It is to define more clearly the word "equipment" and to put it beyond any doubt that it will be the duty of school authorities to provide adequate playing fields. There is no one in the country who does not agree that if, instead of playing their games on the streets and being thrown on their own resources, children could gain health and strength and build up their character on their own playing fields, they would have a far better start in life. It is also capable of proof that every new playing field reduces the work of the juvenile courts and of the children's casualty wards. I think it abundantly clear that this policy will never be fully implemented unless local authorities are fully aware of what is expected of them and, what is perhaps more important, have the support of an


Act of Parliament. A battle royal for every square yard of open space in the country will be raging shortly. Building societies, property owners, ratepayers' associations, rating authorities, town planners, more concerned with the symmetry of their designs than the symmetry of the children, are all on the warpath. The spies are out, and the spies will soon be followed by the big battalions. Against this overwhelming force the education authorities will strive in vain unless they are armed with the decisive weapon of an Act of Parliament. The Amendment differs in one rather important respect from others. Education never stands still. In 10 or 20 years perhaps a Committee of the House will be building a new storey on this educational structure which is now being erected, but if this golden opportunity to provide playing fields is missed it will never recur because the land will be built on. Posterity will never readily forgive us if we miss this opportunity. I know quite well that playing fields cannot be laid out and planted overnight. If the Amendment is accepted the day will come when every school in the country will have a proper range of playing fields with proper colourful surroundings. These six words will herald in a new, better and certainly a much happier life to the children of the country.

Lady Apsley: I am pleased to have the opportunity of reinforcing what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir W. James) has said about the enormous importance of having adequate playgrounds and playing fields. I speak from the point of view of parents who believe that one of the chief aims of education is character building. In addition to the religious background and foundations, we believe that game playing, and particularly team-game playing, to be of almost equal importance in the formation of the character of the young people of our nation. Many of us have heard before that Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. Some of us in this House may believe that this war has been nearly lost—or only just won—on the playing fields of Harrow! But I am sure we shall all agree on the great influence for good of the games played on the village green. We would like to bring the spirit of the village green into the

cities, because we believe it would help tremendously to overcome a great deal of the so-called juvenile delinquency and, another point of extreme importance, the accident rate in the big cities. During the last six years something like 5,000 children have been killed and 15,000 injured through being obliged to play in the streets and on the roads owing to lack of suitable playing fields and playgrounds. Another point of great importance is that in countries where games are not played, the children have to take to other and worse forms of activity. When travelling through Germany shortly before the war I noticed only two cases of children plying. One lot were engaged in playing soldiers and another lot were teasing a puppy by tying a tin can to its tail. "The child is father of the man," and we know where that has led the German youth of to-day. It would be a tragedy in the future if we did not make provision now for all our children to have freedom to play and the opportunity to play those team games which are so essential to character forming.

Mr. Astor: I support the Amendment moved so eloquently by my hon. and gallant Friend. I am sure that it commended itself to the Committee, if only because of the eloquence with which he moved it and the knowledge of many of us of the admirable work he did for the children of Portsmouth during the time he was Commander-in-Chief there. It is not necessary to argue the case for playing fields any further. The Committee has generally accepted it. Indeed, it is implicit in a previous Clause which refers to moral, mental and physical development. It might be argued that the word "equipment" is sufficient to include playing fields, but anybody who looks up "equipment" in a dictionary will see that it means essentially something movable. It means furniture, outfit, warlike apparatus, necessaries for expeditions or voyages. If it was reported that three British divisions had landed on the shores of Italy with their equipment, it would not mean that they brought their playing fields with them. If Westminster School were to be evacuated to Epsom with its equipment, no one would imagine that it took its playing fields with it. Hon. Members may know the poem, which was really designed to describe the immanent presence of the Deity,


but it is a good definition of equipment.
I am the batsman and the bat;
I am the bowler and the ball,
The umpire, the pavilions cat,
The pitch, the stumps, the bails and all.
That is equipment. Neither commonsense nor the dictionary will include playing fields in equipment, and the definition Clause gives no new definition of the word. Therefore, if we are not to prevent reactionary or parsimonious local authorities carrying out what is the clear desire of Parliament, it is vitally necessary to put in the words of the Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: Not many Members on this side were fortunate enough to have any specified playing field when they attended school. I do not like the persistence of that story about Eton. It is time that others in the country got their share of the victory of Waterloo. There were quite a number of representatives of the prisons participating in that batttle, and they deserve to be remembered. When I was at school we had to find any sort of place for playing in. I remember that as youngsters we played on a piece of waste ground adjacent to an old clay pit which had become filled with water. One of my brothers was carried home one evening drowned while playing there. I think I will have the Committee with me on this occasion when I say it will be generally agreed that the wrong brother was drowned. One can see the lack of playing fields in every part of the country, especially in the industrial cities. I passed through a part of Glasgow yesterday and saw the kiddies playing in the streets. The dirt and disease that are bound to be the companions of these children are appalling, and there is in addition the continual menace of the traffic. It is a terrible thing to see in our cities how the children have to make the best of the time when they are out of school. Going into the streets takes their minds from school and any education they have been getting. If there are playing fields where the children can play in classes or in classes competing with one another, they can carry on to the playing fields a certain sense of the education that they have been getting in the school, and the playing field will then become an essential feature of the educational system.

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: While I pay my tribute to the hon. and

gallant Member for moving the Amendment, I am disappointed that he made no allusion to the factor which, in the view of many of us matters most in the provision of recreative facilities. The need of playing fields and equipment is obvious, for we are hopelessly deficient in them in this country. These things, however, are concerned with organisation from without. What the country wants is organisation from within. I know from experience in London how difficult it is to organise games, and I hope the President will make provision that games should be properly organised from within the schools themselves. I will give an illustration of what I mean. There is at least one layout in London which, within its limitations, more or less answers the purpose which the mover of the Amendment has in mind. I allude to Hackney Marshes. The London County Council in its wisdom has heaped Hackney Marshes with the debris of blitzed London buildings. I do not know how long it will take to restore the marshes to their pristine use as a recreation ground, but at the present time they look like the Alps. Hackney Marshes provide 140 football pitches, and from long experience I can say that 10 per cent. of them are not used on Saturday afternoons. That is not because they are not wanted, for every square inch of turf is booked every Saturday. The reason is that the opposing teams do not always turn up, and the reason for that is lack of organisation.

Sir W. James: At Portsmouth there are no playing grounds belonging to the schools. The teachers during the last year have begged and borrowed grounds from the Services. They run six football leagues with 46 teams, six cricket divisions with 37 teams, and they had 1,000 entries for the swimming. The whole of the training, the umpiring and the refereeing is done by the teachers out of school hours and mostly on Saturdays. It is a fair assumption that that could apply to the country as a whole.

Sir E. Cadogan: I am not saying anything against the teachers. Portsmouth is lucky. I still say that it is necessary that the President of the Board should provide that organisation should be thorough in this respect. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend could say how many football teams are provided by Cadet units. One unit is housed in good


premises and only a few yards away is a magnificent recreation ground. Yet they can get only one team out of an establishment of 200. I have had long experience of this work and have been associated with the Greater London Playing Fields Association. I have, therefore, sufficient experience to express this view. Portsmouth is lucky and I am not deprecating what the teachers have done. A very great deal still remains to be done in organising games. In spite of what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend, I hope that the President of the Board of Education will bear in mind that, if he accepts this Amendment, it is just as important to organise games as to have equipment and playing fields.

Sir Edward Campbell: I daresay that the Minister will reply that the Amendment is not necessary, but I beg him to accept it. It will be a great gesture and a great lead to education authorities. I was for some time on the London County Council, and I found that practically all the people on the Education Committee were frightfully keen about cramming the children full of knowledge but not so many of them considered the necessity of keeping the children fit and, as has already been said, of teaching them to "play the game" properly, whether at Eton, or even in this House of Commons. I beg the Minister is take the Amendment seriously. If he accepts it in this form or in some other form, I am sure that education authorities will be pleased that they have had a lead from the Board of Education. Education authorities so often say this kind of kind: "We are not quite sure whether it is in the Bill and whether we are right, and whether, therefore, we shall get the necessary finance." As I am hearing about health practically all day in the Ministry of Health, I think that the way proposed in the Amendment is one of the finest for getting health, whatever Act of Parliament you may have.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It would be a great pity if all the speakers in favour of this Amendment came from the other side of the House. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side are just as keen upon the provision of playing fields or playgrounds for every school as any hon. Member on the other side. I listened to the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth

North (Admiral Sir W. James) and heard the excellent account he gave of present conditions. It reminded me of the time, perhaps 13 or 14 years ago, when there was a dearth of such facilities in and about Portsmouth. As one of the Members then for that great city, I assisted in trying to get grounds for those who wanted them. One of the difficulties then was that all the spare ground was in the occupation of the War Office, which was extremely sticky in liberating fields and open spaces for purposes of the kind desired. However, I am delighted to find that my hon. and gallant Friend has had a more pleasant experience.
One aspect of this matter has not yet been mentioned and that is the great loss of child life because there are no playing fields in congested areas. On that ground, if on no other, I hope that we shall see that these words go into the Bill. My own fear is that in many areas it may not be possible to implement the Amendment. It is certainly true that in London, the provision of playing fields in every locality adjacent to the schools is impossible at the moment, but I would like to feel that, by the insertion of these words, the authorities were enabled to bring pressure to bear, so that spaces would be provided, even if it meant actually clearing adjacent sites. I have played many times on Hackney Marshes and I am sorry to learn that the London County Council have been using that area as a dump for debris. In the old days it was the one great open space for boys' clubs in the East End of London. The number of youths who have enjoyed their Saturday there must be legion, and what is good for the youths must surely be good for the children who are still at school. I therefore hope that the President of the Board of Education will agree to the inclusion of the Amendment which, in my judgment, is one of the most useful that appears upon the Order Paper.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I have listened with great admiration to the eloquence of the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir W. James) and to the hon. Lady. It sounds all right, and I am sorry to put a fly into the ointment, but there is another side to this question. After all, we still have schools in the middle of great cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and London, and so on. How then


can you get playing fields around the schools? It is impossible. Indeed, the hon. Member who spoke last suggested this in his remarks. If the playing fields are outside the city—

Mr. Lindsay: Birmingham has playing fields for practically every school.

Dr. Thomas: I am trying to look at the matter from the practical point of view. How' will it work out, practically? [Interruption] Hon. Members have put their point of view, and I have every right to put mine. I suggest that the President of the Board will carefully weigh what so many of the Committee have in mind against what is really the practical proposition. Let us say the playing fields are outside the towns, then in that case, as my hon. Friend said who spoke a short time ago, a great deal of organisation will be required and they may lose part of their effect because one would have to organise parties to go there—probably at week-ends only. I trust that the President, before he yields to the desire of the Committee, will think carefully of the practical view I have briefly tried to put.

Mr. Butler: I trust that, if I do not indulge in that kind of oratory which has been used by the mover and supporters of this Amendment, the Committee will realise that I want to be quite businesslike while doing my best to help them. The Government are very much in favour of the spirit of this Amendment, and want to do their best to help. Perhaps I might discourse for a moment about the provisions of the Bill which indicate how we can help, and I hope hon. Members will be patient with me. I am advised that my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) is right, and that "equipment" would not be a sufficient word to cover the provision of playing fields. I am also advised that Subsection (7) of Clause 9, which is:
The Minister shall make Regulations requiring local education authorities to secure that the school premises of every school maintained by them conform to such standards as may be prescribed,
does, in fact, give the necessary legal power to carry out the desire of the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth. If hon. Members will look at page 73 and at the definition of

"premises," they will see that it covers detached playing fields.
The Government do not want, in this matter, to rely solely upon a bare interpretation of the Statute as drawn, because there is a spirit in this Amendment which we should like to meet and we wish the Committee to be sure that they are imprinting their own influence upon the Bill as it goes through. Therefore, after ferreting among the Clauses of the Bill, I have discovered a place where I think I can put in words to carry out the intention of my hon. and gallant Friend. This will be the best way to do it, so as not to spoil the symmetry of the Bill as a whole. When we come to Clause 57, which actually deals with this matter and actually mentions playing fields, I shall be quite ready to move a Government Amendment to the first part of the Clause, so as to impose a duty on local authorities to provide for the various facilities which are mentioned in the Clause. The facilities mentioned include playing fields and play centres, gymnasiums and swimming baths. The Clause will then read:
It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that the facilities for primary, secondary and further education provided for their area, include adequate facilities, one for recreation and social and physical training …
et cetera. If I may add those words, I hope that the Committee will accept the spirit in which the Government have responded.

Sir W. James: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lindsay: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, after "equipment," to insert:
such equipment to include the provision of projectors and wireless sets.
I want to raise a question to which I cannot find an answer, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will help me. There has been a very slow, increase in the use of films in the schools in this country, out of proportion not only to all parts of America but to parts of the Continent. The real reason is that the cost of projectors is prohibitive, and there is an insufficient number of film libraries in local education authorities. Instead of 500 or 600, as there are at the moment, we need something like 5,000 before it will be possible to have an adequate film library in this country. At present, only the big authorities are able to provide such a


library. I do not want to go into the question of the place of the film in the school just now, except to say that those who are interested have no thought that the film can replace the teacher, but they are very much impressed by what they have been told by those who have been in the Army in this war and the enormous help that projectors have been to men in the Services during the last three years. A great many of those projectors will be released, we hope, but, whether that is so or not, we should like to include the provision of projectors for schools. Some of my hon. Friends will no doubt say a word as to the provision of wireless sets.

Sir T. Moore: I support the Amendment, particularly in regard to projectors. We learn each day of the increasing power of the cinema as an educational medium, and the war has advanced its uses most substantially. Indeed, a great part of the training of our soldiers is now carried on by means of films. If the screen is so important a method of instruction for adults, how much more effect will it have on the more impression able ages and minds of children? The screen unites pleasure, interest and useful instruction. There is just one point which has not yet been touched upon and it is the question of priority. If the Minister is prepared to consider these amenities, whether in regard to the Clause or in some other position in the Bill, he will have to decide the priorities. We are faced with a three-part priority of projector, film and a room in which to display the film. You may have your projector, but it is no good without the films, and you may have your projector and your films but they are no good sinless you have a room in which to display the pictures. I realise the difficulties with which my right hon. Friend will be faced. At the same time though it may take time and money to provide these facilities I believe that unless it is made statutory they will never be provided at all. Therefore I take it that my right hon. Friend will find a place, whether in this Clause or some future one, for inserting a provision regarding the use of projectors.

Dr. Haden Guest: I wish to say a word in support of this Amendment. I will not add anything to what has been said about films except to remark that I agree with previous speakers on that subject. I wish to say

something however about the provision of wireless sets. Here, there is no immediate question of priorities, as I understand that production has already been switched over to sets for civilian use. There is no difficulty about premises, because wireless sets can be used in the ordinary class-rooms. The B.B.C. provide an extraordinarily efficient series of educational broadcasts which are taken by a considerable number of schools. Though the service has been in existence for over 10 years, dealing with history and all kinds of other important subjects—I will not weary the Committee by detailing them although they are extremely good, being given by authorities, being well adapted to the instruction of children and being very much appreciated by teachers—the number of schools which take the service has been, up to the present, very small. This is because schools have not had the authority to have wireless sets. Some schools have got them, others have not.
I think it should be made abundantly clear that every school should be provided, not only in secondary departments, but in infant and all other departments, with wireless sets. It will enable children to take advantage of the present service of the B.B.C. As a matter of fact if large numbers of schools took advantage of the service provided by the Education Department of the B.B.C. they would, undoubtedly, be willing to increase it very largely, and it would be of tremendous help in the future when the teachers, because of shortage of numbers, will certainly need all the help they can get. I hope, for these reasons, that the President of the Board will accept this suggestion that every school should have the authority to equip itself with at least one wireless set.

Captain Sir William Brass: I support the Amendment. I want to emphasise that at the beginning of this Bill, my right hon. Friend is referred to as the Minister
… whose duty it shall be to promote the education of the people of England and Wales….
Therefore my right hon. Friend has a duty to perform and in this Clause it is stated:
it shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that there shall be available for the area sufficient schools … and the schools available for an area shall not be deemed to be sufficient unless they are sufficient


in number, character, and equipment….
I think it very important that schools should be equipped with projectors for visual aids in education. I happen to have had a little to do with this subject. For the last three or four years I have been President of the British Film Institute, and one of our most important duties is to try to increase the number of visual aids in education. We have had a travelling teacher borrowed from the Board of Education who has gone into different parts of the country to try to convince the local authorities of the importance of the use of visual aids in education.
I would press the Minister on this point, because I do not believe people can be taught efficiently and successfully, without using the eyes as well as the ears. It has been illustrated very clearly I think during this war in all the Services. We have had the cinema used in teaching the men of the Royal Air Force, the Army and the Navy, any technical subject, and I know, from my own experience, having taken a few films myself, how great an aid the eyes can be in education—very much more than if you use the ears alone. One of the great difficulties experienced at the present time is that mentioned already, that there are not sufficient projectors and films. One of the reasons why we cannot get projectors in the schools at the present time, is that there are not sufficient films to go round. There is a vicious circle which requires correcting and it is one of the things which I hope the Minister will take into account when he considers, as I hope he will do, the equipment of all schools with projectors. I also hope he will bear in mind what follows, namely, that it is no use having projectors in the schools, unless you have the films to use in the projectors. That is the vicious circle we need to overcome.
I do not want to go into detail too much as the matter arises later in the Bill but I did want to press my right hon. Friend on this point. We cannot really teach the children of this country properly without modern methods. I do not believe that in the future any school in this country will be properly equipped unless it has a projector to be used for films or film strips. I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend about a special room; I do not think that is necessary or even

desirable. We require in our schools a portable projector as part of the equipment, which can be taken round to all the different class rooms and can be in constant use. I do not like the idea of having a special room for it. What is needed is a portable equipment which can be used in different classes. As well as that we want the teachers to be able to use this equipment and we must have the teachers taught to impart instruction through the eyes as well as the ears. If we once get the provision for which we are asking inserted in this Bill, the fact that we are to have projectors in the schools will be followed up later by courses in teachers' colleges in the use of visual aids in education. Once that is done, we shall be able to use the projectors to the best advantage. I know my right hon. Friend is sympathetic to the idea. Whether he will insert it in the Bill here or not, I do not know, but I hope very much that he will do so. If not, it might possibly be put in later, as he suggested, in Clause 51. I feel very strongly that we shall never take full advantage of the methods of education which have been followed in the Services unless we bring it into the schools so that the children will have the opportunity of being able to see and hear in the course of their instruction.

Commander King-Hall: I wish to support this Amendment from the point of view of broadcasting. I am well aware that some hon. Members think that this is a small and trivial point, but I believe we have reached an extraordinary big and important aspect of education now and in the future. It was with some surprise that I noticed that neither in the White Paper, nor in the speeches thereon, was anything said about the place of broadcasting in education. In the discussion on Clause 4 the Minister said that he would touch on the question of films and broadcasting. He touched very lightly on it, for all he said was that he would demand that all the most modern technique should be represented and encouraged in the schools. Whether by that he meant representation on the advisory councils or not I do not know. I am anxious to receive an assurance that the Minister and his advisers are aware that they are extremely fortunate in introducing this great educational reform at a moment when they have at their disposal


15 years of experience and practice of this new and very successful technique of educational broadcasting.
If my right hon. Friend had been introducing this Bill 500 years ago, he would have said at that time "Thank goodness for the invention of printing." I think he should be very grateful that he is introducing this Bill when these new techniques are coming forward. There will be a big problem because of the shortage of teachers. This is one of the ways in which undoubtedly he will be able to help himself out in that respect. I must not be misunderstood on this point. I know there are suspicions among teachers that broadcasting is intended as a substitute for teachers. That is not so, and it is necessary that it should be made clear that the broadcast talk is only to assist the teacher, not to do the teacher's job. I did this work for five or six years and have had a good deal to do with teachers in connection with it. I have found that once one has convinced teachers that it is a help to them, their suspicion is removed. There is at present considerable suspicion.
Although a considerable number of schools are registered as taking school broadcasts—the number is about 12,000 or 1 in 2 excluding infant schools—it does not follow that they are taking them all, or making the same use of them. It is quite good but I do not think good enough. I think in the future, with the mental boundaries of schools becoming larger, when teachers will have to take the children over unknown territory with ever-extending horizons, it is absolutely necessary that this technique should be used to the greatest possible extent in the school, and that every school should have a good and efficient receiving set. What I think is still more important is that the Minister and his advisers should be prepared to do educational work among authorities not yet converted to the extraordinary help this new technique can give to the teachers.

Mr. Stokes: I hope the Minister will not accept this Amendment. It seems to me that to discriminate at all and to attempt to describe what the equipment should be, will prove to be exclusive. The Bill says that proper equipment shall be provided, and if we are to ride our own pet hobby horse and try to get our own ideas in the Bill it seems to me that unless we all do that, we shall find certain things

excluded in the future. It seems to me that now the matter has been ventilated, it should be left where it is. The provision should be left as broad as possible, and education authorities left all the power possible.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I agree with the Amendment, but, at the same time, I very largely agree with what my hon. Friend has just said. I think there is very grave danger in the acceptance of these actual words, as they may have a limiting effect. For example, a number of Members last week had a demonstration of an instrument called a synchophone which is being used extensively. That instrument seems to be comparatively simple and cheap, but if these actual words relating to wireless sets and films were inserted, it would prevent the use of other things. I have also in mind television. No one knows to what extent television will be a practical proposition for school use after the war. Therefore, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, while giving every encouragement to any visual aid to education and any modem improvement of science that may come along, will not accept an Amendment which might have a limiting effect exactly opposite to what the Mover intends.

Mr. Colegate: I must take this rare opportunity of agreeing with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). There is no doubt that he has put the objection to this Amendment concisely. It is not for the House to prescribe what shall be in any particular year the sort of educational apparatus for schools. That must be settled by regulations issued from time to time by the Board of Education, or even by local education authorities. We all have our little fads: I should like to see, for instance, a planetarium in every school, because I am horrified at the way modern children grow up totally ignorant of the stars, and unable to identify any of them until they go into the Air Force, where I am glad to say they are taught something about them. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not accept the Amendment, which would be far too limiting.

Professor Gruffydd: I rise to support the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). I was horrified at the lack of proportion which was shown in moving the Amendment. The


effect of putting such words in would be, as has been said, to limit the equipment which might come to the schools through the good will of the local education authorities. It would be very much better if the Minister could give some undertaking that somewhere in the Bill he will provide means to enable the local education authorities to spend the money on this and similar inventions. One instance that might be mentioned is phonetic machines: I may say that this House would understand me very much better if there had been a phonetic machine in the school where I was educated.

Colonel Greenwell (The Hartlepools): I notice, from the remarks of some Members, that this Amendment is regarded as limiting. I cannot see that it need in the least limit the amount of equipment which may be provided in future. I join issue with the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) on one remark which he made, which I think would give the President of the Board of Education ample opportunity for resisting the Amendment should he wish to do so. The hon. and gallant Member inferred that projectors must necessarily be of a type and size such as are normally employed in cinemas. I do not think that that is in the least necessary, nor do I think that special accommodation would be necessary for this kind of instrument. The 16 millimetre size of projector would be much more convenient for educational purposes, and would have the advantage that the libraries have films of that size available. If the President of the Board of Education would remember that, he could provide a new form which has proved its worth for education and which need not involve vastly greater expenditure.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I would like if it were at all possible to undo a little of the damage which my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has done. One could, of course, answer him easily by asking him if he thinks that the word "equipment" is sufficient to cover all kinds and whether he would take the same view about religious equipment. In that respect, he is more than anxious, I understand, to have a definite type only in the schools. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartle-pools (Colonel Greenwell) that the words

of the Amendment do not limit the Minister in any way. They specifically say that these brings should be inducted, amongst other things, as part of the equipment or a school. Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), I am a governor of the British Film Institute; and that body, which has studied this matter closely, is extremely anxious that some such words should go into the Bill. The Institute, as the Committee has heard, has had a member of the staff going around visiting schools and groups. That Institute is convinced that the use of visual aids of this kind would be of the utmost benefit in every type of school. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) has said, the use of films and wireless for this purpose is yet in its infancy. The uses to which the cinema can be put have yet to be tested to the full. There is not the slightest doubt that this Amendment would assist in getting this kind of equipment into schools much more quickly than if it were left out. We all know that many authorities are not anxious to spend money, but if they see that Parliament has laid down that this is part of the modern equipment which should be in every school it would assist them in making provision for equipment, which every school, in my view, should have had some time ago.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I rise to support the Amendment. We find in our factories that teaching apprentices by the use of the film projector has been of immense advantage. In several of our works we establish schools, to which people go before being put on the bench. I am sure that the use of films for ocular demonstration of processes, would be of distinct educational advantage in our schools. I am certain that my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary himself—because I have heard him speak on this matter from time to time—are both interested, whether they embody this Amendment in the Bill or not. I am certain that it does not limit the opportunities of local authorities, and I am satisfied that it would be a distinct advantage, particularly to those children who are going into industry, and, indeed, to those who are going on the land. I rarely differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), but I hope the Minister will take into consideration the extent to which the introduction


of this form of equipment in our schools can be of advantage educationally. On the whole, I think he will agree that the balance will be in favour of giving to children who are going to earn their living in industry ocular demonstration of processes.

Mr. Stokes: May I say that I am not in disagreement with my hon. Friend? I object to having these words put in the Bill, but I entirely favour having projectors.

Mr. C. Davies: I do not know what this bother is about. We entirely agree that the best equipment should be given to the children. The only question is over the legal interpretation of "equipment." I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has not the assistance of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. I, therefore, intervene as an old member of the Bar. If you use the one word "equipment," the widest possible interpretation will be put upon it by His Majesty's judges. Add words after it, and at once they limit the meaning. If you add "wireless," somebody will puzzle, "Does that include television or not?" or "Does it include some other invention or not?" Leave it as wide as possible, and the wishes of all of us will be carried out.

Mr. Ede: I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) for relieving me of the task of dealing with the purely legalistic aspect of this matter. We have been advised by competent authority—I would not say higher than his, but at least equal to his—that the effect of putting these words in would be as he has described. But I think we have had a useful discussion. The case for this Amendment has been very well argued, and the Board of Education welcome this demonstration that Parliament is interested in bringing to the aid of the schools all the latest equipment that science can provide. I ought to say a word of caution about the effect that this would have on staffing. I was one of the people who did not have an opportunity of using the cinema but who did have an opportunity of using the old magic lantern, as a visual aid to teaching. With young children, the use of these visual aids entails a considerable amount of preparation and also a very great amount of recapitulation afterwards,

to make quite sure that the child has seen just the thing you wanted him to see. So often one discovered that a quite irrelevant detail had captured the child's imagination far more than the particular thing one wanted him to see.
We have issued various pamphlets on visual aids. We have done everything we can up to the present to inform local education authorities of the importance we attach to the use both of projectors and wireless, in suitable circumstances in the schools. We hope that as the school-leaving age rises they will be increasingly used. I am sure that the House will recognise that in addressing us on this subject my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) was speaking as one who has done a very great deal in making wireless a real measure of education for the young people of the country. I hope that, in view of the statement I have made and the very carefully-given opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) will not feel it necessary to press this Amendment. May I say, with both the Joint Patronage Secretaries here, that on this occasion His Majesty's Government support the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes)?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Parker: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, to leave out from "aptitudes," to "including," in line 13.
It does seem to me that there is a danger in these words in the Clause, and I should like the Government to pay attention to the point I would like to make and to reply to it. I think there is a danger that, when children at the age of 11 go into a secondary school, the parents may then be asked Are you proposing that your child shall stay in the school until the age of 18 or not; will you agree to the child going into a course by which it would remain until 18, and, probably, then try for a scholarship for the university or training college or go into some other kind of further education?" In my view, many parents would not want to commit themselves when their children are only 11 years old. They cannot tell what their own circumstances will be when the child reaches the age of 16 and whether they would enable the child to stay at school beyond 16, even with


family allowances or something of that kind, and it may mean sacrifices. Again, they may not know whether at 11 the child has the mental equipment that will make it desirable that it should go forward beyond the age of 16 with its secondary education. Therefore, I think there is a very great danger that we may have certain forms of secondary school, particularly grammar schools, definitely setting out to be schools in which children should stay until they are 18. There are certain sections of the Norwood Report which rather suggest that that might be done by certain grammar schools. On the whole we think it wrong that working class parents should be asked, when the child is 11, definitely to decide what kind of secondary education it is to have for the whole period of technical education. It might prevent many children, who may develop later, from going into grammar schools if, at the age of 11, their parents were definitely asked to give a guarantee. We should prefer that all secondary schools might be limited in this way. We should like the Government to say something about these particular words and tell us whether there is a danger of schools specialising in that particular way.

Mr. Ede: I think the hon. Member, in the speech he has made to us raising his doubts regarding these words, has ignored the fact that this is a duty we are placing on the local education authority to supply a sufficiency of schools of a wide variety. There is not only the grammar school, taking pupils up to 19, but there is the school with a strong technical side that ought to be passing its pupils on to the technological college, and we hope there will be in our rural areas schools which will take children through a very good course of general education leading towards the agricultural college. We want people to be assured in every area that all these considerations will have been borne in mind, but we want to be certain that we shall have, as far as can reasonably be foreseen, a sufficiency of accommodation of every type for leading these children on, in appropriate surroundings, to the further education they will get beyond the secondary sphere. Unless we put these words in we shall not be able to obtain from the local education authorities this necessary assurance. I am quite

sure that my hon. Friend will realise that there is something far more than the grammar school point in this. I hope that not too many stipulations with regard to school life will be made at the age of 11, and that we shall have learned from some of the troubles of the last 40 years that we can make selection too early at II years of age. Some child, when it gets into school, may reveal aptitudes that entitle him to a longer course than we would have thought suitable on the day it entered school. We require flexibility, but we also require accommodation within which that flexibility can operate, and these words are designed to assure us that the range of education, as well as the length, will be wide enough to deal with children of the most varying gifts.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir P. Harris: I beg to move, in page 5, line 14, after "respective," to insert "educational."
I suggest inserting the word "educational" before the word "needs" in the phrase "instruction appropriate to their respective needs." It is suggested that the status of a child shall not be conditioned by the poverty of its parents, or by the fact that it has been born in a rural area, so that it should not be limited in the instruction and training which it shall receive. I know that is not the Government's intention, but on reading this Sub-section it appears that it might be interpreted to mean that. The education given to a child should be appropriate to his or her capacity to learn.

Mr. Butler: I am advised that these words are not necessary. I give full credit to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, but I am advised that these words are, in fact, unnecessary, and I hope, in view of the fact, that he will not press the Amendment.

Sir P. Harris: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Linstead: Would it be in Order for an Amendment to be moved by an hon. Member whose name is not on the Order Paper?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): Yes, that will be in Order.

Mr. Linstead: I beg to move, in page 5, line 14, at the end, to insert:
and unless the classes are of a size to ensure that the standard of instruction and training does not suffer by reason of the undue size of the classes.
I find myself in a very curious position in moving this Amendment, the reason being that it bears a strong family resemblance to the previous Amendment, and by its acceptance we should be achieving what I myself and some of my hon. Friends have in mind, namely, to ensure that we impose a duty upon education authorities to provide sufficient accommodation when making their plans, not merely for the pupils they have at school at that particular time, but also for those who will have to be at school when the school-leaving age is raised. It is fairly obvious that when this Bill goes on the Statute Book it will only be the end of the beginning, and there will be an enormous piece of administrative work to be done by the Departments and the education authority. We look at an Amendment of this kind as providing a target for local education authorities, and if necessary a lever which will enable the Board of Education to encourage backward authorities.
Of all the reforms which are necessary in the educational field there is nothing greater than the need for smaller classes. We would like to see the figure of 30 mentioned in this Bill merely as a target to which education authorities ought to be aiming all the way through their reorganisation plans. Thirty, of course, is a maximum, and not by any means a minimum. It may be that the Minister will tell us that, in the various instructions or memoranda which will be issued to education authorities regarding the provision of schools, some sort at figure will be laid down, but it seems to us that it is far better to have the provision specifically in the Bill, rather than merely in a Departmental memorandum. We think that there is in the words of this Amendment, or in some words which may seem more appropriate to the Department, a specific duty laid upon the authorities to provide accommodation sufficient to reduce the classes to the reasonable minimum of 30.

Mr. Lipson: I am very glad to be able to support the plea made by my hon. Friend, and I agree that if

you were to ask those who really know education from the inside, the teachers and school administrators, they would tell you that this is really the greatest single reform that anybody could bring about in education—to reduce the size of the classes. One asks oneself what is the main purpose of this Bill. Is it to improve the quantity of education or the quality? I suppose that the President would reply that he had in mind both objects—to improve both quantity and quality—but I would remind the Committee that unless it is emphasised in the Bill and adequate steps are taken to reduce classes, by increasing the quantity of education you are decreasing the quality, and for this reason. At present, there is great overcrowding in the schools, but under this Bill it is proposed that something like half a million more children are to be retained for their school life. That may mean that the overcrowding which exists at present would be made very much worse, and the teachers, who already have an almost impossible task, would really find one quite impossible to cope with. I therefore feel very strongly that somewhere in the Bill the urgent need for reducing the size of classes should be emphasised, and I would like to make this other point.
The President has made it clear that one purpose of this Bill is to try to bring about a greater equality of educational opportunity. If we turn to the public schools, we find that the classes there are much smaller, and that is one of the reasons why they are so successful in their work. It we are going to have anything like equality of educational opportunity, it is necessary that the classes in the schools under the local authority should be of comparable size. I would remind the Committee, too, that it is chiefly in the elementary school where the great overcrowding exists and the teachers in these schools have the most difficult of tasks. I therefore hope that the Minister will see his way clear to accept this Amendment and to ensure that, while he is increasing the school life, he is also taking care to ensure that, in so doing, he is not allowing the present education to suffer in any way, but that, by reducing the size of the classes, he should see that progress is made in improving both the quality and the quantity of the education given.

Mr. Harvey: I hope that the President of the Board of Education, who has already delighted the Committee by agreeing to insert words in another place to meet the object of the previous Amendment with regard to playing fields, will be able at this stage to make a similar promise, and that if he is not able to accept these words he will, at some appropriate place in the Bill, insert words which will make clear that it is the intention of Parliament that the size of classes shall be limited. If he cannot put any figure into the Bill, he should make it absolutely clear to local education authorities that we expect, as an essential feature of the great reform which this Bill will inaugurate, a substantial reduction in the size of classes. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) I should be very glad if we could have in the Bill itself a target figure, or at least a target at which to aim, such as the figure of a maximum of 30, but I recognise the difficulty of putting any figure into the Bill.
It is not enough that we should just rely on the firm intention of the present President of the Board of Education. In the past, we must admit, local authorities, and also the Board of Education, have been remiss in this supremely important matter. For several years before the war I kept asking questions of the then Presidents of the Board of Education about the size of classes and I could not get a satisfactory answer. Everywhere, in all parts of the country, there were overcrowded classes, in some cases, overcrowded classes with empty classrooms not very far away, sometimes even in the same school., I remember one such case. A member of the local education authority told me how they could not divide the class into two and utilise an empty room because the Inspector would say it was overstaffing the school. The fault, in cases like this, lay with the Board of Education, or with the influence of the Board of Education in the past. We want to be sure that the whole influence of the Board of Education will in the future be thrown—as I am sure the President of the Board would wish it to be—into the reduction of the size of classes. All other reforms really may be said in some way to depend upon this. You cannot give a chance to the teacher unless he has a small class and you also deprive the children of the education that is their due. If you can reduce classes—even if you do not extend the school age—

you can do more for education than if you extend the school age and retain these vast classes, in which it is impossible for the teacher, unless he is an exceptional teacher, to have a personal knowledge of and interest in, and a personal influence upon, every child in the class.
One cannot emphasise too much the importance of this reform, and realising that, we are right in asking the President of the Board of Education to find some suitable words to be inserted in the Bill to express what, I am sure, is the intention of Parliament in respect of this great Measure.

Mr. Logan: This is the first time that I have spoken since the White Paper was issued, but I want it to be noted by the Committee that I am in agreement with the Amendment. I also feel it to be very necessary to consider this matter from the point of view of finance. This should receive full attention in regard to any improvements under this Bill. It is necessary to mention this point because, although you can go on improving all the time, there are financial difficulties which have to be met, and I want to know how they are to be met. I am anxious about how the expense of a Bill of this sort is to be met, just as I am anxious about the expenses of the household. A spendthrift wife can spend all that a man earns and she can obtain credit, but later on, perhaps, the husband will be asked to foot the bill. I am wondering who would have to foot the bill if all these Amendments were carried. The Minister stated that he hoped in another place to introduce words which would meet with the agreement of the Committee. I should like to know from him who is to bear the expense of the proposal contained in this magnificent Amendment. I am in agreement with the improvements and in favour of every child getting advantages, but I want, under a national system of education, to keep pace with the expenses which are so essential to it. I have heard many statements that money will be plentiful after the war, but I remember what occurred after the last war, and I am anxious to know whether, if the Minister accepts this Amendment, there will be any easing of the financial burden of those bodies who must of necessity carry the cost of the improvements.

Mr. Morgan: I support the Amendment. I have had considerable practical experience as a teacher and in an


administrative capacity and I particularly put the size of classes as a first priority here. If I were asked, as a result of my own experience, what was the first thing to be done to improve education nationally I would say, "Reduce the size of the classes." I would put that even before the raising of the school leaving age. I would do that as the first essential. If you do not reduce the size of classes you are not getting into the schools the best class of teacher. I remember very well indeed an excellent man who taught in the next room to me. He came out of college with the abundant enthusiasm which we all get when we are very young. He was going to put things right in the school. He, like me, found that in his first position as a teacher he had to deal with, or to handle, a class of 70 boys. That is not so long ago.
It is not so bad now, but there are still classes of 40 or 50, which illustrate my point. This excellent and qualified man could not grasp the situation. He could not keep order. I wonder how many of us could. Fortunately for me I did, and in order to make things better, the headmaster said, "I think the best way to deal with them is to have the partition removed so that you can keep order in both classes at the same time." What was the final result? This excellent and qualified would-be schoolmaster left the profession and took up one of those most awful forms of educational drudgery: he went to mark books at correspondence colleges. If the Minister could give an assurance that these classes must be reduced in size, we should be satisfied. Some time ago I tried to draw from the Parliamentary Secretary some figure at which they are aiming. Anybody who has had actual experience knows that 30 is an ample number for a class. Under war condition we have to put up with certain things, and there are some classes with 40 and 50 children. I hope that whoever replies on this Amendment will say that they are not only stopping that, but that they have a definite figure at which to aim. They should bring all classes in the near future to 30. Unless that is done it will be impossible to go on with the excellent scheme outlined in the Bill. We ought to consolidate one position first. That reform ought to have been carried out before bringing in the

present Bill. Only by consolidating one position and then another can you get real reform.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to apologise to the Committee and I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) for having moved this Amendment.

Mr. Quintin Hoģģ: It is a Tory Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: I was detained, and on this occasion I was not under orders from Moscow but from Washington, but, nevertheless, I ought to have been here to take charge of my own responsibilities. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) should be in the unfortunate position of having to introduce into such an important subject the sordid materialism of finance. The important thing is not to think about finance in connection with the size of classes and perfect education. Let us keep in mind a clear system and method of educating our children. That is the big thing. I am one of those who was educated in a very large class in an elementary school about 50 years ago, and I have recollections yet of the teacher being completely worn out before the day was over. [An HON. MEMBER: "I am not surprised."] I would not say that I was responsible for that, but at any rate the class was incapable of getting the advantages of education which the children were entitled to get. Here you have the result of it. On Thursday the Home Secretary found it necessary to inform us that there was democracy in this country. Well, if I had been educated in a small class surely I would have known that. A little later the same day, the Foreign Secretary got up at the Box to inform me that there was freedom in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

The Deputy-Chairman: I think those quotations were rather wide.

Mr. Gallacher: I was only illustrating the evils of the overburdened class where the teacher was in the position of being unable to get ideas into the minds of his pupils, and when you come to Parliament you are in the unfortunate position of having to be guided along on the most elementary points. That is just one of the effects. Everyone who has taken an interest in education appreciates that this is a very great evil which hinders and


hampers the development of the young mind. How is it possible for a teacher with an enormous class, with such a task before him, to see in the different parts of the class the different possibilities that exist amongst his pupils? How is it possible for him to develop initiative and the very particular qualities which these children have?
The one valuable thing in education is not to get a whole class to recite "Two and two are four; A.B.C.D." and the rest, but to have a class where the teacher is able to study each of his pupils and their different characteristics and encourage them to develop their different qualities, and in that way get the greatest possible co-operation between teacher and pupil, which is impossible in classes where the teacher is overburdened with work. In this White Paper, and in this Bill, the system that is being developed is one that means—if it is effectively carried out—co-operation right from the President, through the authorities to the teachers, and from the teachers to the pupils. Give the teachers a moderate number of pupils that they can handle, that they can understand, so that they can tell the capabilities of each of the pupils, and you can get real co-operation between the teacher and the pupil and, as a result, particular qualities of mind will be brought out and developed. That above everything else is what we want in this country when the war is over, the greatest possible encouragement for initiative and for the development of character among the children.

Mr. Ede: There have been several autobiographical references in the course of this Debate and I would like to say that I was taught in a class of 90. The first class I had when I left college was 73, and the smallest class I ever taught before I left the teaching profession, for its own good, in 1914, was 55 in number.

Sir Joseph Lamb: There are. 614 here.

Mr. Ede: The Government recognise that this problem of the size of classes, with its necessarily correlated subjects, the supply of teachers, goes to the root of this Bill. It is quite clear that unless we can get an adequate supply of teachers this Measure will not give the country the results for which we all hope. Therefore

we have during the past few months devoted considerable attention to the problem of the supply of teachers. One of the senior officers of the Board has been throughout the country holding a series of meetings at which all the local education authorities, the teachers' organisations, and similar bodies, have been represented, and at which the emergency scheme for dealing with this problem has been discussed. The response from those gatherings has been very encouraging. There is a strong determination on the part of all those who have been represented at these gatherings to see that as large a number of teachers as possible may be trained for the schools during the years that will immediately follow. We are, of course, awaiting the Report of the McNair Committee with regard to the long-term permanent policy for dealing with the training of teachers after we have managed to secure a sufficient recruitment to meet immediate needs.
I am sure the emphasis that has been placed on this subject in the Committee to-day will assist in bringing home to those people the importance of this particular issue. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), although he was moving the Amendment that stood in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan), the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) spoke rather more to his own Amendment in which he had declared in favour of a definite number being placed in the Bill. As far as that line of policy is concerned, I am sure that if at any time during the 56 years I have been within the State system of education, a number had been inserted, we should not have made as much progress as we have in the time between. I recall that when I was first certificated it was said that the head teacher could be regarded as the equivalent of 35 pupils, every certificated teacher responsible for 60. That was how I came to have 73—I had my own 60 and a third of his 35. There was a similar allowance for each other type of teacher.
All those figures are now merely matters of history. By insisting that under Regulations the size of classes shall be continually reduced until we reach something like the figure that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has put in his Amendment,


we shall be able to make progress a great deal more quickly than by inserting something in the Bill which will from time to time require all the machinery of an Act of Parliament to alter. Let us be assured of this, that any figure that was feasible to-day for the size we would like to see, would be seized upon by certain people who would say "That is the figure which is permitted for every class," and we should find some classes that are smaller than that to-day being increased because it would be said they had statutory sanction. I hope I have convinced the Committee that His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of this issue, that we shall continue all our efforts to increase the supply of suitable teachers of every kind for the full working of this Bill, and that we, realise as much as the Committee that the success or failure of our united efforts depends upon our being able to secure this recruitment to the teaching profession. I hope that with that assurance my hon. Friend, who made himself responsible for the Amendment which was so kindly brought forward by my hon. Friends from beyond the Border, who are not affected at the moment by this Bill, will feel that he can withdraw the Amendment.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: If my hon. Friend is not able to accept this Amendment, or to insert an actual figure in the Bill, could he give an undertaking that, in the Annual Report which he is pledged to bring to Parliament every year under Clause 5, he will tell us exactly how the position of classes stands?

Mr. Ede: I cannot think that any Annual Report of the Board would be regarded by this House as complete which did not give the clearest possible information on that point.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the remark my hon. Friend made about his friends from across the Border, I want to say that we are anxious to bring the English standard up to the standard in Scotland.

Mr. Tinker: I think we are all impressed with the need to reduce the size of classes, but the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary clears the point. He has promised, so far as the provisions can be carried out, and so far as teachers can be provided, to reduce the classes

accordingly. That is the right answer for a question of this kind, because if we were to put in any fixed number the whole thing might be undone, for it would be necessary to get teachers and that might not be possible. I think, therefore, that the reply ought to convince the Committee that the Board of Education are alive to the difficulty of this matter and that, at the first opportunity, they will try to carry it out. I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Major Thorneycroft: I have listened with interest to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary; I find them satisfactory. It seems to me that we are in somewhat of a muddle in the Committee owing to the sad business of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) being unable to move the Amendment. In point of fact it is his Amendment which we are discussing. The figure of 30 has been mentioned and I think it is a very suitable figure to work for, but this figure is not included in the Amendment, which deals merely with the progressive decline in the number of pupils in a class so that the standard of education will not suffer. This Clause lays a duty on local authorities to provide schools sufficient for the number of pupils who are going to be there anyway and, progressively as the age is stepped up, for the increased number of pupils who will come in.
Everybody agrees that that duty must be placed fairly and squarely on their shoulders. But at the same time that is only one leg of the proposition. It is wholly insufficient for the authorities to concentrate merely on stepping up the school age. That is going for quantity alone and my hon. Friends who are Members of the Tory Reform Committee are most anxious—and this is the reason why they stepped into the breach left by the hon. Member for West -Fife—that the aspect of quality should be equally emphasised.

Mr. Cove: Are the Members of the Tory Reform Committee prepared to make it statutory that the size of classes should not be more than 30?

Major Thorneycroft: I have said quite plainly that I think 30 is a good number to work for.

Mr. Cove: But is the hon. Member prepared to lay it down?

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member would be in Order in laying that down now; it is entirely outside this discussion.

Major Thorneycroft: That is so, Mr. Williams. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks it inappropriate to put an actual figure into the Bill I would be inclined to agree. But I would ask the Minister to consider whether in this Clause, or somewhere else, it is possible to include some words which do emphasise quantity and quality as being equally important? I do not think that is asking too much. The Parliamentary Secretary dealt with teachers. Later in the Bill we shall all be talking about the supply of teachers but that is not relevant to this Amendment. We are dealing here with buildings. Surely we can place a duty upon the authorities to build adequately.

Major Woolley: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will enlighten us a litte more with regard to the attention that will be paid to different types of schools. There is at the moment great disparity in the size of classes in primary schools and secondary schools. Figures I have here show that 80 per cent. of classes in primary schools in non-county boroughs have over 30 pupils, whereas only 40 per cent. of the classes in senior schools have over 30 pupils. I have figures for three other types of local authorities where the same inference is reflected. Therefore, I hope that the same attention will be given to the primary school classes as will be given to the senior classes.

Mr. Harvey: I wish to appeal to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and to ask him, if he cannot accept these words now, whether he will undertake that at some suitable place in the Bill some words will be introduced to make it clear what is the wish of the whole Committee and what is his wish. We desire to have this in the Act and not merely in a speech made by a Minister. As the reason for not accepting this Amendment my hon. Friend said it was because he disapproved of its words. None of his argument applied to the Amendment which was actually moved. It was directed to another Amendment which has not been called. The Amendment which is actually before us contains no figure. His argument was against putting a target figure

into the Bill. What we want is to have the principle made clear, and it ought not to be beyond the power of the Board to find suitable words, if they are unable to accept these words, to convey what is, I am sure, the intention of Parliament.

Sir H. Williams: . I find it difficult to understand why there is so much heat about this matter. It does not matter in the least whether this Amendment is carried or not, or even whether the greater part of the Clause is carried. Let us be realists. I do not know how many elementary school children there are—possibly about 6,000,000.

Mr. Ede: Not quite 4,500,000.

Sir H. Williams: Does that include Scotland?

Mr. Ede: This Bill does not include Scotland.

Sir H. Williams: The term "undue size" means anything you like. It depends upon what the Minister may think next year, the year after or, possibly, five years from now. If you interpret it on the lines of "the bright young things" opposite, as they are sometimes called, or "the pink 'uns," it is a proposal to deal with classrooms. Suppose you have a school of 10 classrooms holding 45 children in each. That is accommodation for 450. If you are to say that 30 is to be the minimum that is accommodation for 300. Therefore, you have to add 50 per cent. to the number of your classrooms, which will give the Ministry of Works a bigger job than ever. If you change the school age some time or other—and unless you provide more accommodation you will make classes so large that education of the children will be deplorable—you have, roughly, to double the number of separate classrooms in this country. Having got them you are to ask people, because they are unable to get a job in industry, to constitute themselves as teachers. You are to increase the number of teachers by nearly 100 per cent. How long will that take? You cannot seriously start until demobilisation is well under way. I am not considering whether this is good or bad. I am merely looking at it from a realistic point of view. I was brought up in the education profession, so I have some interest in the matter. As I have said, it does not matter whether the Amendment is passed or not, because it does not mean anything. The decision


will not be taken by the Minister. There will be two General Elections for certain before any of these things can materially happen. I do not understand why the T.U.C. and other such bodies are continually passing resolutions demanding that something should happen on a particular day, when no human power can bring it about. For the time being this Bill is eyewash. It is not a reality, and cannot be a reality for several years to come. Clause 8 is full of aspirations. When those aspirations will be turned into realities nobody in the Chamber can predict, but I for one say that you will not start until nearly two years from now.

Sir Georģe Schuster: I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). In this Bill we set ourselves a target and we must set ourselves an adequate target. There has been a good deal of discussion whether 30 should be put into the Bill, and the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the possibility. In Clause 10 the Minister will have to call for schemes from local authorities, and in those schemes a certain standard will have to be set. I imagine that, as a working rule to go on with, he will set himself some standard of what are to be the average sizes of classes. I should like to get some statement from him to the effect that; when those schemes come in, they will be tested by a standard which, it is clear, the opinion of the Committee regards as necessary. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can say something about that. We have to face up to this question. We have to study priorities, and a very strong opinion has been expressed, with which I entirely agree—I am glad to be associated for once with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)—that this question of reducing classes and setting ourselves a reasonable target in this matter is of the most vital importance. It out-weighs everything else.

Mr. Linstead: The Parliamentary Secretary made one point which has, possibly, rather misled the Committee. He said he was strongly opposed to the introduction of any figure relating to pupils in classes. It seems to me that at some stage we are bound to have figures, because an architect has to draw up plans on paper, and you must give him some instructions as to the size of the classrooms. If earlier Amendments are examined closely, it will be found that we are talking in terms of accommodation,

and not primarily in terms of numbers of pupils in classes. In line 8 we are defining what is to be sufficient in numbers, character and equipment.

The Deputy-Chairman: We have passed those words.

Mr. Linstead: I think I am in Order because the words that follow define "sufficient." The point we wish to make is that accommodation must be one of the elements in the definition of what is sufficient, and it seems that those words could be looked at again with advantage in order that accommodation should be included in what is sufficient for the purposes of a satisfactory school.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) was quite right when he said the Bill faces us with two big issues—teachers and buildings. On the other hand, I am not happy about the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, because he argued that, if we fixed a definite figure, we should encourage backward authorities to rest content with that figure. We have been told that the problem after the war is going to be the recruitment of teachers. I do not see how you are going to recruit extra teachers unless you have some idea of the exact task that you have to undertake. It is important that we should consider the whole question. We should have a fixed idea in our minds of what the size of classes is to be.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: It seems to me that we ought not to let the mischievous and defeatist speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) pass without a very strong protest. I think I am speaking for the majority of the Committee when I say that if we had faced the problems of the war in that sort of spirit—"We just cannot do it, it is impossible"—we should have lost long before this. We have gone a long way to meeting the U-boat menace and have built aeroplanes and done all sorts of things, because we just had to. That is the spirit in which we have to face these problems after the war. I should not like it to go out from this Committee to those who are fighting overseas, and are looking to us for a better future, that we were taking this defeatist attitude.

Sir G. Shakespeare: I should like to join with others in urging my right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter so that, before the Report stage, he can satisfy us. We do not want a figure to be published which we all know cannot be reached. There is a good deal of truth in what the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) said. In my view, if there is no raising of the school age, and none of these reforms which we are all rejoiced to see in the Bill, the local education authorities have so much leeway to make up, that they could spend five years on it. One of the great leeways is to reduce the size of classes to manageable dimensions. That is the kernel of the whole problem. One realises the difficulty. The figures will vary for different types of schools. For the few years that lie ahead, the question can be dealt with administratively, but I hope that within a very short time we shall see it in the Statute.

Mr. Butler: How else can we deal with the question except administratively? The hon. Baronet has done a great service in helping to curtail our discussion. This is the only way it can be dealt with.

Sir G. Shakespeare: As the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) has pointed out, within a year from 1st April local education authorities have to submit development plans, and they cannot do it unless between now and then there is a clear statement, by a circular or by some other means, by which every authority knows the sort of size of classes that is required. If that were done, I should be satisfied.

Earl Winterton: I very frequently disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) but the attack made on him was quite unjustified. It would be out of Order to pursue the matter but the hon. Member referred to U-boats. The reason why any form of warfare is carried out is simply because we deny ourselves things which, in peace time, we should not deny ourselves.

Mr. H. Lawson: My point was that we must face this urgent problem in exactly that way.

Earl Winterton: That means exactly nothing. It is the sort of argument that is frequently used on the platform. I will

tell the hon. Gentleman what an urgent problem is, and it arises out of this Amendment. It is to provide the accommodation which the Amendment entails. If anyone supposes that in the present circumstances of the war, with Germany and Japan undefeated, it will be easy to do that, he is living in the greatest fool's paradise imaginable.

Mr. Ede: I am sorry that my answer has aroused so much further discussion because I hoped that I had made the point which has since been made clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare). This is an administrative matter, and it is best dealt with administratively. When we come to the development plans under Clause 10, the local education authorities will have to disclose as one of the ways in which they will carry out this Bill the size of classes they prefer. In reaching their decisions on that matter they will be guided by the Regulations that will be issued by the Board indicating the size of classes at which they should aim. We are dealing in this Clause more with the question of buildings, but I hope we are not going to reduce the size of many rooms in order to make them fit the smaller classes. I have discovered that the ordinary sized class room in the senior department of the public elementary school is not too large for the 30 children that will occupy it when the school becomes a secondary school. This is a matter to which we have given great care. We are endeavouring to recruit the teachers, and it is no use hon. Members suggesting that this is a case of buildings only. What will determine the size of classes in the long run will be the number of teachers available. I hope that I gave the Committee an assurance that we are diligently pursuing that path with a view to enabling the reforms that we desire to be made at the earliest possible moment.

Major Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary made a reference to numbers and said it was not a matter of buildings only. The reason I talked about buildings is that they are the only things which are relevant under this Clause. He says that it will be possible to do something under Clause 10. Does he propose to introduce a reference to a


gradual and progressive reduction of the size of classes, emphasising the quality of education as opposed to quantity?

Mr. Ede: In Clause 10 (2, a) are the words:
give particulars of the proposals of the authority as to the nature of the education to be provided in the school and as to the ages of the pupils.
It is clear that in all these matters, in order to make the scheme effective, there must be a statement of the size of classes which the authority proposes.

Major Thorneycroft: I am grateful for that answer, but I cannot see any reference to the size of classes. Will my hon. Friend give some assurance that between now and the Report stage he will seriously consider whether some reference can be made to this matter, which the Committee has shown is the kernel of the Bill?

Mr. Cove: You are asking for the impossible and you know you are.

Mr. Ede: Clause 10, Sub-section (2, g), says that the plans shall
contain such other particulars of the proposals of the authority with respect to schools for providing primary and secondary education for their area as the authority think necessary, or as the Minister may require.
It is clear from what I have said that among the thing's that the Minister will require will be a statement as to the size of classes and the scale of staffing adopted by the local education authority.

Mr. Lindsay: Is my hon. Friend willing to insert something there?

The Deputy-Chairman: We had better leave that and come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: Cannot something be done in paragraph (f)?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid we have gone a little too far.

Major Woolley: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that the primary school staffing will not be prejudiced in comparison with the senior school?

Mr. Ede: I said in my reply in the Second Reading Debate that we regard the supply of teachers for the primary schools as just as important as the supply for the secondary schools.

Mr. Linstead: I still feel that we cannot regard the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary as satisfactory. We want somewhere in the Bill reference to accommodation as well as to other things. In view of the fact that the point can be raised again on Clause 10, which will enable the Minister and us to consider it further, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Perhaps in doing so, in order that we may—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot go on with another speech after asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, at the end, to insert:
(b) to the expediency of securing that, so far as is compatible with the need for providing efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable expense to the authority, provision is made for enabling pupils to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.
There has been a wide feeling in the Committee and in the course of our previous consideration of the Bill that proper attention should be paid to the wishes of the parents and that nothing in the Bill should take away from the rights of parents or from the existence of the family influencing the child's life. The Government indicated on the Second Reading that they would be ready to consider this matter sympathetically. The fruits of our deliberations have been put upon the Order Paper. The Government have met very fully the desires expressed in more than one quarter with regard to the wishes of parents being borne in mind in considering the number and types of school available. I think that the Government have done this with the imagination that the Committee would have desired, because we have not only re-enacted the relevant Section of the Act of 1921, namely, Section 19, in language which we have revised, but which reproduces the meaning and sense of that Act, but we have also put it in a Clause of the Bill which deals with the general provisions of existing schools, that is, the review of schools as a whole, as well as in reference to the provision of new schools and the notices procedure, which is what was governed by the relevant section of the 1921 Act. To that extent we have fully met the general opinion put to us.
There is another Amendment in the names of certain hon. Members in which a desire is expressed that as far as practicable the wishes of the parents should be met. We have, I think, more than met the spirit of that Amendment. I feel that in the course of our discussion it is impossible to prevent hon. Gentlemen expressing their views very fully, and if hon. Gentlemen wish to say something on this subject I would not wish to prevent them. I think, however, that we have met the spirit of what they desire. What we propose is that this should be done, so far as is compatible with the need for providing efficient instruction and training, and the avoidance of unreasonable expense to the authority. I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment and will take it as covering the one that follows it on the Order Paper.

Mr. Logan: Why this differentiation between "compatible" and "practicable"? What is the difference in meaning?

Mr. Butler: I have gone back to the source of the Amendment, which, as is well known to the Members who were supporting it, is the Act of 1921, and I have simply put into rather broader language the principles laid down in that Act. There is not anything peculiar or sinister in the wording.

Commander Bower: Parents all over the country will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for inserting the Amendment, and I am grateful as well. There is one point on which I must disagree with him, however, and it is where my right hon. Friend says that he has simply taken the words of the 1921 Act and brought them up to date. The relevant words in that Act are:
shall have regard to the interests of secular instruction, to the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children, and to the economy of the rates.
There are three instructions which, so far as I can see, were held to be equal, but my right hon. Friend says in his Amendment:
to the expediency of securing that, so far as is compatible with the need for providing efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable expense to the authority, provision is made for enabling pupils to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.

The quotation I have given from the Act of 1921 gives the wishes of the parents a status of its own, whereas it is very highly qualified in the words of my right hon Friend's Amendment. We attach very great importance to the primacy of the parents' right in determining the education of their children, and here it is being whittled away almost to nothing.
Who is to determine what is compatible with the need for providing efficient instruction and training? Who is to determine what is unreasonable expense to the authority? I really cannot feel that the wording of the Minister's Amendment is altogether satisfactory. I would like to ask one other thing, for the convenience of the Committee and to save time. This matter of the rights of parents will recur, notably on Clause 10 and elsewhere. Will my right hon. Friend introduce Government Amendments wherever applicable as a result of the Amendment which he is moving now, or does he want us to go on doing it, in which case he will have the laborious process of altering our words? I think my right hon. Friend might well strengthen the wording of the Amendment in the interests of parents, and I hope that he will be able to give us some assurance on the particular points I have raised, namely, as to who is to determine what is compatible and what is reasonable.

Mr. Henry Brooke: Having kept silence for three days in spite of great temptations, I would now like to express in a very few words my gratitude to the Government. Some of us were definitely anxious lest administrative convenience should be allowed to override every other consideration, and we did not see sufficient safeguards against that in the Bill. The Minister has introduced an extremely important safeguard. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) has expressed some dissatisfaction with the wording. I would point out to him that in some respects the Government Amendment is considerably wider than the provisions of the 1921 Act which he quoted. Section 19 of that Act refers only to the question whether a particular school is necessary or not, but here, it seems to me, the Government's Amendment will require local authorities to have regard to the wishes of the parents over a much wider field than that. We are putting on record here that the wishes of the parents are one of


the outstandingly important factors in our educational system. I hope therefore that the Committee will accept this Amendment with a good heart.

Mr. Logan: I wish to thank the Minister for the Amendment which he is now submitting and which is stated to be an enlargement of the idea in the Amendment we had upon the Paper. If that be so, there should be no difference in the meaning of the words and there would be no harm in embodying the wording of our Amendment in that of the Government, and particularly inserting the word "practicable" in place of "compatible." In the Oxford Dictionary the meaning given to "compatible" is "consistent," and to the word "practicable" the meaning "that can be done." There is a subtlety in the use of these words. The Minister is most anxious for deeds and not for words, so I should imagine he would consider that what can be done, is more reasonable than that which is consistent, because compatibility may not always be practicable. I do not want to take the Minister through the elementary stages to the higher stages, but I do suggest that, for clear understanding and simplicity of language, which would be better "understanded of the people," the second Amendment would exactly meet the views of the Committee and would be clearer than the Minister's Amendment. I want to be quite honest with this Committee. I am sure that a minority can appreciate honesty. I want to say that I have no time for Ministers when they are piloting a Bill through Committee. A Minister will be suave and most gentle, cooing like a dove. He will do anything to get his Measure through. But I understand that the business of those who are sitting here is not to sit as dummies, but is to watch the movement of the Bill and to see that the Minister does not get altogether what he wants.
I know there is a Coalition but I do not forget that we had opposition once from these benches. It was very invigorating and very inspiring for those sitting in opposition. Therefore I do not think that in a Coalition we should allow a Measure of this description to pass the Committee without taking the best advantage. I suggest to the Minister that he should remove the word "compatible" and insert "practicable." If he would give me an assurance that now or later on he will put

in that word I think it would remove my objection because "compatible" has not the same meaning as that a thing can be done. As I am one who wants things to be done I would like the word I have suggested included and the other deleted.

Mr. Butler: I am afraid that if I put the word "practicable" into my Amendment it would not make sense. If the hon. Member presses me I am afraid I shall have to turn him down on that score. We have taken a certain pride in the English of the drafting of this Measure and I should not like a breach to occur on this occasion. Seriously the Government have purposely met the wishes not only of those moving the Amendment but the wishes of the Committee. If we are to spend a long time on Amendments the Government propose to accept as well as on those the Government object to we shall take a very long time to get through this Bill. I should like to have the Committee with me in hoping we may get this Amendment to-day.

Mr. Lindsay: May I ask a question? Does this include a choice of schools as well as curriculum? Does it include secondary as well as primary schools?

Mr. Butler: It includes secondary as well as primary schools.

Sir H. Williams: I do not know what this means. In practice, suppose I am taking little Billy to school on his first day. Does it mean I have rights as a parent in discussing the curriculum with the headmaster or headmistress and doing the same at intervals throughout his school life, as people have when they are paying large fees for the education of their children? If I have a child, and there is a school three-quarters of a mile away, and another half a mile away, am I entitled to choose to which of these schools I shall send my child? People say that this Amendment has, primarily, something to do with religion. I think it has but it covers the whole range of education. In what way is this enforceable by a parent against the local authority? Can they get an injunction? Unless they have the right to force the headmaster or headmistress to give attention to their wishes I do not believe these words in practice mean anything at all.

Sir P. Hannon: I wish to express my appreciation of the kindly consideration of my right hon. Friend in putting


this Amendment in the Paper. I think it will give great satisfaction throughout the whole country as showing the attitude of the Government towards the duties of parents of children who attend school. In view of what the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has said, perhaps at a later stage during the progress of the Bill, the Minister will indicate what machinery he will create, so that the voices of parents of children attending school will be co-ordinated and brought together. I am sure that the President has this at the back of his mind, and so far as myself and other Members who are anxious about the duty of the Government towards the voice of parents on the education of their children are concerned, I would like to say how profoundly grateful we are to him.

Mr. Stokes: Might I ask the Minister whether he can assure us that the provisions of this Amendment leave the parents in the same position—in a not less bad position—than they were under the 1921 Act?

Mr. Butler: That is our object in moving the Amendment.

It being one hour after the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES, SCOTLAND (MEETING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Beechman.]

Mr. Mckinlay: I wish to raise a question of which I have given the Secretary of State for Scotland notice. This case arose from a Question addressed by me to the Secretary of State on the subject of a meeting held at St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh, during January. In answer to my Question the Secretary of State stated that the meeting was called to discuss technicalities. I challenged that statement and I challenge it again. It would appear that what is between the Department and myself is whether officials of local authorities were

called to Edinburgh to discuss what was policy or to discuss technical subjects. As a member of a local authority I am very jealous of local authorities' rights, and if I may say so it is causing some apprehension not only throughout Scotland but I think South of the Border, that local authorities' rights are being slowly filched away from them. The Secretary of State in his reply said he had a transcript of what transpired at the meeting. I had a minute drawn up by the City Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Housing Department of the City of Glasgow. That minute was drafted from memory. Since the minute was in my possession the local authorities have had a meeting with the Department in Edinburgh and have accepted one or two minor details. The minute supplied to the Glasgow authorities by their officers is substantially the same.
The local authorities in Scotland are disturbed, and when the City Engineer reported that there was a proposal to transfer large-scale civil engineering organisations engaged at the moment on Government contracts to prepare the roads and services for future housing development in Scotland they wanted to know, and I want to know, why large creations and large organisations which were granted substantial Government preferment during the war should be given a preference—I say "preference" deliberately, because a preference is being given by the very conditions imposed under the scheme—to construct roads and services, in anticipation of housing development. Housing development is purely a matter of policy: the construction of roads and sewers and the putting-in of services is clearly a matter of policy. A suggestion was made at that meeting which confirmed my suggestion that it was the large-scale operators who were going to get the preference—a suggestion for a purely new type of road construction so far as Scotland is concerned, namely, substituting a seven-inch concrete bed in an 18-foot road for the method adopted in Scotland of bottoming and dressing with metal. That is a departure from practice. I do not say that a departure from practice is a bad thing, but I do say that those large-scale operators have hatching plants, I presume, for which employment must be found. That suspicion is aroused by the suggestion of


constructing roads in Scotland with concrete. They have bulldozers. It might be interesting to get the figures of the amount of Lend-Lease stuff that those contractors are operating, and the conditions under which they are operating; but that is a side issue. The local authorities are to supply to the contractors:
Lay-out of roads, with levels and sections; levels and diameters of sewers and drains; sufficient information as to lay-out to enable drains to be constructed"—
I am reading now from the minutes supplied by the officers to the local authorities—
information as to any special requirements (e.g., prohibition of combined drains, special construction of roads); any available information as to the nature of the subsoil level of rock (if any).
All these things are to be supplied by the local authorities to the contractors. But the strange thing is that, while the officers reported to the local authorities that the proposal was to bring large-scale developments to these operators, who, mark you, it was intended would have a redundancy of labour in the early spring, a list has been circulated to the local authorities of Scottish contractors who might be asked to quote for this work. A later paragraph says that there are other contractors who have offices in Scotland.
I want to say, without offence, that so far as the Scottish contractors are concerned, a condition is imposed which almost puts them out of court right away, because it is conditional upon their having had recent experience in large-scale Government development work and having the necessary plant. Some of the firms I have in mind had some of their plant requisitioned and handed to their competitors. If there is a redundancy on this class of work, why not direct the men to Scottish contractors, to do the work in their own way? The argument is that we do not want this force of labour to be dispersed. I was associated with one big undertaking who had not only their workmen but their technical assistants dispersed and put into the service of these large-scale operators. Local authorities in Scotland object to the introduction in road construction of what is known as the designated craftsman. How many craftsmen do you ordinarily employ in road construction? The point I want to make is that, if these men are available, why not let the Scottish authorities issue their

own schedule? Why not direct the men—5,000 of them, I understand—to the contractors from whom many of them were taken, and let the Scottish contractors do the developing themselves? There is this other point. We had some trouble recently in getting a clear-cut statement as to the relation of the Ministry of Works and Buildings in connection with Scottish house construction. There is a paragraph here which says:
The Ministry of Works could decide, in conjunction with the Department of Health, areas to be covered by individual tender.
What I want to know is—since when did the Ministry of Works have the right to interfere with Scottish housing development? If the Ministry of Works have no right to interfere in the actual erection of the houses—and you can build houses, but they are useless without roads and services—I want to know what right has been conferred on the Ministry of Works, for if my reading of the situation is correct, the Ministry of Works is the Department which controls this mobile labour at present employed by the large-scale operators. It is that or nothing, and, because of the fact that they have control, they presume to determine what is to happen in road development in Scotland. I want to warn the Under-Secretary that Scottish local authorities will treat this proposal with a stepmother's breath. I do not think you will find a single word of comfort from any local authority in Scotland. They are supposed to lay in sufficient services and construct sufficient roads for a two years' programme after the war. As a matter of fact, it involves a departure from long-established practice suitable to Scotland—the substitution of concrete.
I think I am safe in suggesting that the specifications and methods of carrying out the work are something dictated by the Ministry of Works and Buildings, and the Ministry of Works and Buildings are determining who the successful contractors are going to be and are also to determine the grouping that takes place. Is there any redundancy in March and April of 15,000 men? Why cannot the quota be transferred and Scottish local authorities given the undertaking that; if their technical staff produces the levels and the plans, and reports on the sites, as they do in the ordinary course of their deliberations—why cannot we have an undertaking that, when the Department of Health has indicated


acceptance of the proposals and the contractor has been fixed, the requisite labour will be directed? There is another complication which involves the Essential Work Order and it involves the Uniformity Agreement and the 60-hour week without working on Sundays. What are you going to do in places where the conditions of employment are far in advance of anything given in the Uniformity Agreement, which was rejected by the Uniformity Committee in Scotland for practically every housing development which has taken place in Scotland during the war?
There are the complications, the piece work on road construction, and all these things are apparently under the control and direction of the Ministry of Works. If the Department in Scotland has got to the stage when the Ministry of Works is prepared to confer an honour or favour on it, the sooner we know about it the better. I can say with truth and without fear of contradiction, that there is not a local authority from Stornoway to Stranraer that desires the Ministry of Works to have anything to do with any of their housing developments either during the war or immediately after. I say that in the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works; it is not aimed at the Parliamentary Secretary or the Noble Lord. It is an encroachment which will not be for the development of good housing in Scotland. I want an assurance from the Under-Secretary that the Department will at least explore the possibilities of getting the Ministry of Works to agree to transfer a sufficiency of labour to Scotland, when it becomes available, to cope with the road construction and the services required for our post-war housing development.
What is the position of the Glasgow Corporation, who have £60,000 worth of civil enginering plant literally eating its head off, and has been doing for years. I understand that the Corporation, had it indicated to them that they could carry on, but they cannot carry on without the necessary labour. Can we have an undertaking that, just as superannuated employees, willy-nilly and without regard to how long they had been superannuated, were directed and transferred to work for big monopolies and private contractors,

arrangements will be made to transfer the necessary labour so that they can proceed with the work?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I can assure the hon. Member and the House that any action that has been taken in the calling together of officials of some of our larger housing authorities in Scotland was for only one purpose—to try to obtain what advice we could from them and their assistance in dealing with what I believe is, as will be admitted by my hon. Friend, one of the greatest problems to be faced in Scotland at the present time. There was no attempt on the part of the Department really to deal with policy as policy. It is a common practice of the Scottish Office that, when we are discussing problems affecting Scotland, we call to our aid expert advisers. They may come in the way of advisory committees dealing with various problems or they may be, in other cases, unofficial advisory committees called together so that we can obtain their views on some of the ideas we may have, to see whether they are practicable or not, to hear their objections, if there are any, and to consider their advice, as and when it is given—all this being done for the sole purpose of enabling us to administer these things in Scotland to the best advantage of the Scottish people. That is exactly what was done on this occasion.
There was a big problem facing us, the problem of housing, and at the moment there was a shortage of labour. Organisations had been built up for the purpose of providing aerodromes in order to enable us effectively to prosecute the war. It was expected that in the very near future most of that work would be ended, that organisation having accomplished its task, and we were desirous of considering how we could best help in the servicing for the housing areas. We had set for ourselves the target of building 500,000 houses in ten years: we wanted on an average to build 50,000 houses per year. On many of the old methods, such as putting out separate schedules or engaging even small contractors, and the competition between local authorities, we wanted to try to get some agreement, so that it would be possible to switch over, from the work now being done and almost completed, the labour that would then be available to service at least the sites for 50,000 houses and have at least one year's programme in hand so far as the servicing


of the sites was concerned. That was the purpose of this meeting out of which has arisen the present Debate. I may quote from the notes which have been referred to by my hon. Friend.

Mr. McKinlay: I have not quoted the Report at all.

Mr. Westwood: Well, I am going to quote from our notes; I am not going to challenge the point made by the hon. Member. Let me point out that there were eight representatives of the Department of Health present and only two representatives of the Ministry of Works.

Mr. McKinlay: I have the Report here.

Mr. Westwood: The House has not got it and I am trying to give the House the facts. There were called together representative officials from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Lanark County, and Dumfermline, so that we could discuss these problems and try to get their advice. It was made perfectly clear at the meeting at the very outset that the local authority representatives had been invited as experts with wide knowledge of the preparation of housing sites and not primarily as officials of their local authorities; that the discussion would be based on the preparatory plans that we had and the ideas we were going to submit for their consideration and, when the proposals were fully matured, the local authorities would be formally consulted.
I know how jealous are Members who have spent years in local administration, of the rights of local authorities. I share that feeling with my hon. Friend. We have both spent most of our years of life in local administration. I do not complain about it when problems like this are brought up and discussed. All I say is that in this particular case there is no justification for thinking for a single moment that there was any attempt on the part of the Ministry of Works to interfere with the rights of Scottish local authorities, none whatever. There is, however, an earnest desire on the part of the Secretary of State and myself to get assistance from anywhere and everywhere to enable us to deal with this problem, which is greater than almost any other problem we have to face in Scotland at the present time. I want to say, without any fear of contradiction, that we have had the whole-hearted support of Lord

Portal, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry of Works and their unreserved assistance in dealing with this particular problem.
When we wanted to carry through experiments in Scotland in the conversion of hostels into houses for our people and in the reconstruction of Nissen huts we did not have any difficulty with the Ministry of Works in getting all the assistance we required. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I would be false to our duties if we were not willing to accept all the help we could get from any Department. We can accept this help all the more gratefully because of the generous way in which the Ministry of Works have come to our aid in dealing with this problem.
I want to assure my hon. Friend that there has been no attempt of any kind to impinge upon the rights of local authorities. Following on the meeting referred to we had a meeting with the local authorities, and I find, on reading the transcript of what happened, that they were not all hostile to the idea of getting any assistance from the Ministry of Works. There would be almost interminable delays if we had the smaller housing authorities all competing to get the work done, instead of having a proper organisation. Therefore, we asked these local authorities to combine, so that reasonable-sized units could come into being. On sites of less than five acres we say that the small contractors can do the work quite well. But we are trying to use organised units where 2,000 to 2,500 houses are to be serviced. Our ideas will not be forced on the local authorities. My hon. Friend referred to concrete roadways. They may be something new, but that does not debar us from considering them.

Mr. McKinlay: They are not new.

Mr. Westwood: I understood my hon. Friend to say that they were something entirely different from what had been put down in the past by local authorities in Scotland. Further, we shall be able to check up in connection with prices if we have a uniform standard, a common schedule and an organisation that is able to do this work. We made it clear that Glasgow would be allowed to carry on with direct labour. So far as the Department of Health are concerned—and I have


the approval of the Minister of Works on this point—we will explore the possibility of transferring labour, but not to the breaking up of industrial units. If an organisation which is already built up does not get the contracts and the labour is available, that labour will be directed to those who do get the contracts in Scotland.

Mr. McKinley: Whose labour is it—the Ministry of Works, or is it the prerogative of the large-scale operators?

Mr. Westwood: As long as they can keep their units together, the direction is through the Ministry of Labour. I want to make it perfectly clear that we will

explore the possibility of transferring when it becomes available any labour that will help us. I trust that with that explanation my hon. Friend will be satisfied that there was no attempt to impinge upon the rights of local authorities but that there is an earnest desire on the part of everyone to get all the co-operation we can, from the Ministry of Works or from anyone, to enable us to deal with Scotland's greatest problem—housing.

It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order of the House of 25th November.